Jump to content

Heretalearn

Members
  • Posts

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Heretalearn

  1. Have you read FAR 22.1010 and 22.1012? Is it subject to the Service Contract Act or a similar standard? Does it contain 52.222-41 and 52.222-43 or 44?
  2. You're the CO? You'll know that there's no privity of contract between the subcontractor and the Government. Your agency probably restricts the authority of your COR to act and to authorize acts. I don't know of anything that would prohibit the COR from communicating with the subcontractor, but even where the relationships are fairly informal, there's less risk to all parties if all Government communications are with the prime contractor, possibly "cc'd" to the CO and/or the subcontractor. When acting as a prime contractor, we would insist and our subcontracts would provide that any subcontractor communication with the Government be through us, or if initiated by the USG that we be notified of it by the sub immediately. When we are a subcontractor, we would refer any direct communications from the Government to the prime contractor.
  3. Depending on the contract language, the cost of the property and the relationship with the Government agency, my company would probably resist either providing new computers or making a cost reduction for property which it may not be able to use effectively elsewhere after 30 days, without equitable adjustment. We have faced this fact situation twice with respect to radios, the specifications for which were changed during performance. Both were FFP contracts for commercial items. Based on the contract language in each instance, we maintained that we had already provided compliant radios and that the changed specifications constituted a contract change. (We may have used alternative arguments, but I'd have to refresh my memory with the files to elaborate.) It wasn't necessary to litigate either instance. In one, our claim for the replacement cost was ultimately allowed. In the other, the Government withdrew its demand that we meet new specifications.
  4. ji20874, why do you really really hope Government agencies didn't widely issue stop work orders on Oct. 1?
  5. The modification exercises the option. It says, "The purpose of this modification is (1) Exercise Option Period 3; (2) Provide funding in the amount of X for X for the month of October, 2013". CLIN 3001 in the exercise mod is for 12 Months @ Unit Price = Total Price (Unit X 12). The remaining CLINS are subCLINS, which break the 12 months into increments of 1 month, 5 months and 6 months. The 5 and 6 month CLINS are described as "Optional CLIN". Is your view that failure to fund or "order" one of the "Optional" CLINS validly avoids a Termination for Convenience?
  6. We have a fixed price service contract entering its third 1-year option period on October 1st. The offered price for the option was for one CLIN described as services for 12 (quantity) one-month (units) @ 1/12 (unit price) x 12 = Amount (price). We have been provided with a bilateral modification (the modification authority is "Mutual Agreement of Both Parties") exercising Option 3, but that breaks the previous CLIN into 4 new CLINS: 3001 recites the unit and 12-month prices as set forth above; 3001A recites the unit and total prices, and allocates funds for a 1-month period; 3001B recites the unit and total prices for an as yet unfunded 5-month period; 3001C recites the unit and total prices for an as yet unfunded 6-month period. CLINS 3001B and 3001C contain the legend "(Optional CLIN)". The agency has been readying a solicitation to re-procure the services prior to expiration of the current contract, in the hope of reducing the price. If we countersign the exercise modification, can the CO avoid a Termination for Convenience process merely be declining to fund the "Optional CLINS"?
  7. I don't know about most protests, but my company makes a very detailed cost/benefit analysis prior to protesting any loss. We ordinarily use in-house counsel, but a protest is still too expensive in terms of costs and resources to undertake one that's not founded on solid protest grounds or because our feelings are hurt.
  8. Thank you, I'll read Title 29. I should have done so without being reminded; I didn't think it would address notice of a CBA by a contractor to a contracting officer. There is no reason I don't want to notify the CO. I was worried about the time-frame for notification, if any, in terms of eligibility for price adjustment for wage/fringe increases for the position. Thank you both.
  9. Thanks. I was worried that I have to notify the CO within a specified timeframe that there will be a second CBA.
  10. We have a prime service contract, containing FARs 52.222-41 and 43. The fourth option will expire after September 30. The agency has notified us of its intent to exercise a 6-month extension commencing October 1. We're negotiating a CBA with the service employees' collective bargaining agent, as the current CBA also expires after September 30. Heretofore, first line supervisors have been covered by the CBA. The collective bargaining agent advised us today that it wishes to drop those supervisors from the CBA which covers the rest of the labor force, but it has offered to enter into a separate CBA for those first-line supervisors. I believe that both CBAs would have to be executed and submitted to the agency prior to October 1, in order for us to be entitled to price adjustments for wage/benefit increases under the applicable FARs. The agency has been anticipating that we will submit a new CBA for the labor force. I haven't located any requirement in the contract or FARs that would require us to notify the agency if we are going to submit two CBAs rather than the one they are anticipating. Is there such a FAR requirement that I may have missed?
  11. What about any price difference for the expired 45 days? Could the 45 days worth of services be "de-scoped" after co-execution of the bilateral extension, or is that too risky for the Government?
  12. Happy birthday. The hours of learning, challenge and entertainment are much appreciated.
  13. Thank you Mr. Edwards. I understood CBCA Rule 2.d to provide that consolidation is a Board-discretionary option when more than one case has been filed. (Please correct me if I err.) We're hoping to avoid having to file more than one case, hence the thought that we may wait until the total price has been invoiced. I'd appreciate knowing whether, under that circumstance, you believe that filing a separate claim for each invoice would be preferrable to filing one claim for the total of the unpaid invoices.
  14. If I submit a separate claim for each monthly invoice as it is rejected, each Contracting Officer's Final Decision will become appealable at roughly 60-day intervals. I don't find a mechanism that isn't awkward in either the CBCA or COFC Rules to roll appeals of the later claims into an appeal of the first claim. If we wait until all invoices have been rejected to file any claim(s), would it still be preferrable to submit a separate claim for each invoice rejected?
  15. If the company did not violate US law, did not violate or breach any of its Federal contracts or subcontracts, answers all representations and certifications in conjunction with its Federal transactions honestly and accurately and does not make any false statements with regard to the situation, I doubt adverse ramifications are likely to arise.
  16. Wow. My understanding, from the new CO in my scenario, is that the new requirement comes from the Director. On the contract we're discussing, we've had upward of 6 COs that I can think of. At times the contract's been managed by supervisors, lead specialists and directors; for fairly lengthly periods of time, we haven't known exactly who the CO for the contract was. During that time we've had to file claims for every option year wage increase (and appeal two of them) and to retain title to our inventory, among other problems. We've had similar challenges with other contracts of recent years. Well. As the saying goes, "If it was easy, they'd all be doing it". Your responses in your email string weren't jerky. A little bluntness can be forgiven given the level of frustration you must have been experiencing.
  17. Thank you for the edit and guidance.
  18. My firm has a Firm Fixed Price service contract which entered its final year in October, 2012. The contract requires a fixed number of annual productive hours of severable services. The Schedule describes for each contract period, a "Firm Fixed Price Work" CLIN for each of several labor categories; the unit is Labor Hours at an hourly Labor Rate, and extends to an annual total price for each CLIN. There's also a "Firm Fixed Price - Other Direct Costs" CLIN; there's no unit or unit rate for the ODC CLIN. The Invoice Requirements provide for invoices "not more frequently than monthly". Historically, at the agency's direction, usually pursuant to a contract modification exercising an Option, the annual extended Price for each CLIN has been divided by 12 months, totalled, and invoiced monthly in arrears. The Option 4 exercise mod didn't contain invoice specifications. Commencing in November, 2012, the latest CO requires invoicing of actual monthly productive hours worked (not an issue, it will "come out" by the end of the period to the annual Price). However, she has stated that she will reject invoices which reflect 1/12 of the ODC CLIN Price, that are not supported by receipts. Though there are occasional, minimal monthly ODC expenditures, the vast majority of ODC expenditure for this type of service occurs during start-up. There are no contractual requirements for support documentation (though we provide timesheets), but at the CO's demand, we're attempting to support the 5-year ODC CLIN with "receipts" (printouts aren't acceptable). As luck would have it, some portion of hard copies of paid invoices are flood damaged. In the interim, I've been trying to convince the CO that hard copies of paid invoices (which probably won't match the accepted ODC Price anyway), are irrelevant to our entitlement to the Price accepted by the Government, and the Invoice Requirements condition allows us to invoice it monthly. However, I can't find anything addressing a contractor's entitlement to the Fixed Price regardless of cost experience (I don't have the ability to research cases). I've referred her to FAR 16.202-1 (which is, however, merely a description) - and the contract's payment clause, 52.232-1, which she says refers to proper invoices, which she maintains ours aren't absent the "receipts" she's asked for. Is there a seminal (or not seminal) case I can point the CO to, that establishes a contractor's entitlement to the accepted Firm Fixed Price, regardless of cost experience? Or a FAR that I haven't found that might help clarify?
  19. Ah. The price adjustment process isn't statutory (that I can find). But you knew that, didn't you? I don't know anything about FAR deviations, but I infer from your question that it is something DOECPA could get around with a FAR deviation.
  20. Contractors who pay non-union, "non-exempt" employees at a rate that is higher than the prevailing Wage Determination rate may not be able to recover all of any wage increase.
  21. If your solicitation will contain 52.222-43, you're requiring your offerors to warrant that the prices do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under the clause. The clause goes on to provide for adjustment for wage determination/CBA wages and related increases current on the anniversary date of a multiple year contract or the beginning of each renewal option period.
×
×
  • Create New...