Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ji20874

  1. It’s not a matter of being on the safe side.  It’s a matter of complying with the solicitation.

    PERTINENT INFORMATION:  NAICS code for this solicitation, and its size standard   

    WHOLLY IRRELEVANT INFORMATION:  NAICS code for any other solicitation, and NAICS code self-certification in annual Reps & Certs.

    You need to submit a subcontracting plan if you are not a small business concern based on the NAICS code for the solicitation.  

    Based on the NAICS code for this solicitation, are you a small business concern?

    YES - You don’t need to submit a plan.  

    NO - You need to submit a plan in accordance with the solicitation instructions.  

    If you did an annual Reps & Certs based on some other NAICS code, you will want to update your certification in the Reps & Certs for this solicitation.  

  2. Consideration from the contractor can be a reduction in contract price (benefit to taxpayer) or added value in the product (benefit to your program).  You already know this.  Either one is fine, whatever you can negotiate.  

    Consideration from the Government can be a delivery date extension and forbearance in terminating for default or cause.  Retreadfed covered this.

    BEWARE!  Your COR may take the contractor’s side in any disagreement or recollection of facts.  You may be left standing alone in this matter, and may be seen as an enemy to the mission for disturbing the peace of the contractor.  Your COR really may not care about the contract text or about correct principles.

    Does the contract include the Government Delay of Work clause?  If so, you are liable in a REA situation only for costs or delays starting within 20 calendar days before you receive the required written notice which the contractor hasn’t even submitted yet.  If a REA asks for additional time, the contractor has to comply with whatever clause applies.

    You are right — even though it is Christmas, Uncle Sugar does not give gifts to contractors.  

  3. 1 hour ago, lotus said:

    Okay, so why not have just one evaluator, who is the same person as the source selection authority?

    That would be fine -- but usually, the selecting official is at a higher grade than the evaluators, and he or she relies on the evaluators to handle the minutiae. 

  4. apsofacto,

    How about this?  The FAR had to default one way or the other.  They wrote FAR 52.215-1 to default to allowing for (but not mandating) award without discussions (with Alt I mandating discussions) -- the contracting officer picks the clause with or without the alternate.  Maybe they flipped a coin.  If they had written it the other way, your question today might be the reverse.

    There is an error in the question.  Here is the question--

    • Why is the government's default position that competitively "negotiated" contracts will be awarded without discussions?

    That is not the default position.  Here is a better phrasing of the question--

    • Why is the government's default position that competitively "negotiated" contracts will may be awarded without discussions?

    Since we're in the beginner's area, let's teach correct principles:  the default (no alternate) is to allow for award without discussions. 

    To me, it makes sense to allow for award without discussions as the default.

  5. AndiiM,

    For a T&M contract, you are entitled to hourly rate payments only for persons who are qualified -- you are entitled to ZERO hourly rate payments for an employee who does not meet the qualification requirements.  By submitting your invoice for that unqualified person, you may have made a false statement, which could have criminal penalties.  So if you don't settle this amicably with the contracting officer, you may find yourself facing bigger problems. 

    See para. (i)(1)(B) of the clause at FAR 52.212-4 with its Alternate I, or para. (a)(3) of the clause at FAR 52.232-7, whichever is included in your contract.

    You probably need to correct and re-submit all of your invoices that requested hourly rate payments for this unqualified person. 

    But don't just take my word for it -- hopefully you have an attorney who can advise you.  You probably want to make the corrections without admitting any fault.


  6. Guardian,

    You might have a rock solid reason to deny the REA if you haven't exercised the option yet -- isn't the contractor's request for adjustment (not equitable adjustment, just adjustment) supposed to happen AFTER the option exercise?

    IF you follow this course, the same issue will present itself again, so you will still have to find answers to your questions.  Is your agency labor adviser of any help?  See https://www.wdol.gov/ala.aspx and FAR 22.104(b)(2) and (3).

  7. Part One.  I agree that the contractor has not made its case.  The fact that the CBA caused the average employee's pay to increase by $1.30/hour is irrelevant.  The contractor needs to demonstrate the before and after effect of the WD (or CBA).  You also should have some concern that the contractor may not have negotiated the CBA in good faith, because it assumed that it would pass all increased costs to the Government -- but a contractor is still supposed to vigorously negotiate the CBA, and a comparison with other prevailing wages might be helpful.  Hopefully, your agency labor adviser will ne able to help you.

    Part Two.  You should deny the REA.  The contractor has a choice:  new employee or overtime for existing employees.  The contractor is asking for a gift, not a REA -- and Uncle Sam doesn't give gifts to contractors (although Christmas is almost here).  What contract clause is the contractor invoking to assert its right to a gift REA?

  8. rios,

    Do you believe Company B is lying?  If so, will you start a debarment action?

    Do you believe Company A entered into the agreement in bad faith?  If so, will you start a debarment action?

    Have you notified the GSA CO of all this nefarious conduct?

    You are refusing to honor the novation agreement signed by the parties and accepted by the GSA CO.  That's serious business.  

  9. Elbarz,

    You finally answered the question that was asked in the very first comment in this thread!  Now, we can answer your question (Joel just did) with a “No.”  If you won your contract in the original competition on an unrestricted basis (not as part of a set-aside or reserve), then the Limitations on Subcontracting clause in the contract applies to any orders that are set-aside as an exception to fair opportunity (para. (b)(3) of the clause), and does not apply to orders providing fair opportunity.