Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

MegB

Members
  • Content count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MegB

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. I currently work for the VA and have seen a few things that could end up in the news just like the Denver VA. It is like no one is learning from the mistakes others are making.
  2. Thank you all for your responses. The attorney I have been working with spoke with the VA Office of Administrative Law who contacted the DOL and the following was stated :Yes, they will need to issue a mod to the contract incorporating the correct wage rate and ensure the contractor pays the applicable rate retroactive to the beginning of the contract performance period. This also means the contracting officer will have to negotiate an equitable adjustment with the contractor.
  3. TAP, What exaclty was told to the contractor? Too bad so sad, you should have pursued this before award? What I am having a hard time with is that I am dealing with a SDVOSB who will be potentially out of $30K. $30K is not that big of a deal for a large business, but it is a big deal to a small one. On a side note: One of my co-workers recently had a contractor submit an SF1444 during the solicitation phase. My co-worker submitted the SF1444 to the DOL and was told by the DOL that they wouldn't process the request until the award was made. In her situation, the contractor was pursuing this prior to award and was told to wait.
  4. The contractor had a reasonable basis for why they proposed the rate they did. The contractor proposed the hourly rate from the prevailing wages for the county the work was being performed in. This was the rate posted to the Office of the Labor Commissioner for the State. I can prove that the contractor was paying the rate proposed as I have been receiving the certified payroll before the DOL added the classification to the Wage Determination at a higher rate.
  5. C Culham, Ask a Professor seems to have your same view: https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=3&cgiQuestionID=22941 The Air Force doesn't have the same view. See the bottom of page 12 of their Davis-Bacon Desktop Guide: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGoQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fww3.safaq.hq.af.mil%2Fshared%2Fmedia%2Fdocument%2FAFD-080711-076.doc&ei=gpReU9OlNYTgsATz_4D4CQ&usg=AFQjCNFprFBAalV_om2Z5_ADOzFc79qvoQ It says that no adjustment is made to contract price regardless of the nature of the DOL's response. This is the reason why I am so confused as to what I should do. I don't work for the Air Force, I work for the VA, however, I would think that the response for this topic would be the same no matter who you worked for. Meg
  6. I did. I just didn't know if this was really considered a modification to a Wage Determination. This really isn't changing the wage determination, it is adding a classification that wasn't listed in the wage determination. Maybe I am making this harder than it really is.
  7. I know in a Firm Fixed Price contract the contractor assumes the risk with price increases. I am asking my question because I have been getting conflicting information from people I work with.
  8. I have a firm fixed price construction contract with no options. The contractor has a classification that was not contained in wage determination. The SF 1444 was submitted to the DOL. The DOL denied the request and responded with an approved rate much higher than the rate proposed by the contractor. The DOL states that the contractor must pay the applicable rate to the start of performance of the craft but does not state that the contractor is allowed an equitable adjustment. Is the contractor allowed an equitable adjustment for this much higher rate? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
  9. I have a fixed-price construction contract that has the following specification for landscaping maintenance: " Plant Maintenance Period - Contractor shall begin a 90 day maintenance period after complete project acceptance by the Government." I don't know how to handle this. I have been told that it could be treated like a warranty where the service is pre-paid for at the project acceptance. I have also been told that the contractor would have to bill the following three months after project acceptance. Clause 52.232-5 does not speak to this type of situation leading me to believe that the best course of action would be to modify the contract to remove this requirement because it should be a service contract and not a part of the construction project. Any help in pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
  10. It sounds like to me what is happening is that instead of the technical activity putting together an Independent Government Estimate, they are asking a company to provide a price estimate.
  11. Ron, As you say in accordance with FAR 25.501(b ), you can rely on an offeror's certification of the origin. The problem is that the offerors are mistakenly using the definition of "Domestic end product" and that 50% of all the costs of the components are made in the US. If I am not mistaken domestic end product is for the BAA and US-made end product is for the TAA. The definition of "US-made end product" states that product is US-made if it is substantially transformed in the US. Don, Thank you for the article.
  12. I am a contract specialist. The solicitation has already closed and I have proposals I am reviewing. The WTO GPA is applicable because this is a supply contract over $202,000. DFARS clause 252.225-7020 was in the solicitation for the offerors to fill out. I am finding that what is being offered has an origin of country that has not signed a trade agreement, but is modified in the US. That is why I am trying to find out if the DoD has anything that can help determine "substantially transformed". That would help me to figure out if the product is noneligible or US made. The offerors are confusing the BAA and the TAA because they are stating that their product is US made because they would be doing over 51% of work in additional labor and materials in the US. This is a threshold for the BAA, not the TAA.
  13. I mean the items fall under the WTO GPA because it is a supply contract that exceeds $202,000. And I am finding that these items are from a country that has not signed a trade agreement.
  14. I am working on a purchase for items that are under the TAA but not a part of the Recovery Act. The issue I am having is that these items are from a country that is not a part of the TAA, however, they are modified in the United States. So what I am trying to do is to see if I can label them a US made end product. According to the definition in FAR Part 25.003 "US made end product is a product that is substantially transformed in the US into a new and different article of commerce with different name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed." I have found questions in determining substantially tranformed from the Department of Energy (DoE), however, I am with the DoD and cannot find anything specific for the DoD. Does anyone know of any specific determination for the DoD and who would make this determination? I don't think this determination should lie within the Contracting Office, but here I am having to deal with it.
  15. Why can't it just be as easy as the KO or contract specialist checking the invoices in WAWF before the COR approves it? We do this all of the time at our location.
×