Jump to content

dcarver

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dcarver

  1. Yeah, I tend to agree with that sentiment but I don't think that any court/GAO would side with us on it. I like to take the perspective that if you waited until the last second to send it then it's your fault if it ends up being late, but I'm not quite sure that argument holds up. I think the misconception from many offerors is that as soon as they hit "send" from their e-mail they believe that the e-mail is submitted, when in actuality it could take any number of minutes to be received on the other end. That's the risk factor in waiting until the last minute with electronic delivery, as highlighted in this case. I think the court relied upon the first part of 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)( when making their ruling and forgot the "and" in it regarding "in Government control." I would define in Government control as the proposal being handed off to a Government official or in the case of electronic submittal in the inbox of Government employee. I'm not sure that either Offeror ever met the conditions of the clause, when read literally.
  2. I'm interested in the dialog on this. I've always found it weird that we pass laws that would in turn change various clauses in the FAR, yet we don't follow the law at the time until the FAR Council finally gets around to implementing it. Retread - The deviation is always possible, but I would assume that the approving authority for the deviation would probably want to see some concurrence from the SBA on the deviation before approving it. I don't see why the SBA would disapprove, you're still directing business to small business in this case, two for that matter.
  3. There is a difference between what you consider to be fair and what laws and regulations say. With regards to the court case, it is blatently obvious here that the COFC is using a good amount of leeway when interpreting the clause. word for word? These guys were late. The e-mails, while sent before the closing deadline, did not reach the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure no later than 5:00pm one day prior to the date specified for receipt. Using common sense and how todays technology works? Sure, we could accept them. But, we don't get to bend laws when we want to, do we? Vern touched on it in his post, but I'll point you to the change that needs to be made. In 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)(A), the clause designates rules for electronic commerce acceptance and 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)( designates rules for acceptance presumably for hand delivery (specifying received at the Government installation AND under Government control). (f)(2)(i)(A) and ( need to be updated and clarified to keep up with the times. So, again, read Vern's 2nd to last paragraph. It is pretty cut and dry why the contracting officer considered them late, and was right to do so.
  4. You can negotiate whatever you want with your prime, the Government doesn't have privity over subcontractors. What you should remember is that they are looking at fully burdened labor rates, not just what you pay directly to the engineer. So, if your fully burdened rate is say, $125/hr, the prime is going to hit the tripwire most likely due to the indirect rates they place on top of your fully burdened rate as well. The point of the tripwires isn't to avoid them, it was more to bring to attention where the Navy is spending a large amount on a single labor category and to ensure they aren't paying excess where it isn't warranted.
  5. If task orders were a stand alone item, why would you need the base IDIQ in order to issue it? Just something for you to think about. You can't have the task order without the base IDIQ.
  6. Agree with retread, there is no reason that the exact title matters as long as they proposed personnel that met the conditions of the key personnel clause. Did you all ask them to map their titles to the ones you asked for? If you didn't, I can't see why they are mad about it. Job titles aren't standard.
  7. Adjusting the Target Cost to account for actuals performed is not an incentive contract. You're essentially adjusting the target cost to reflect the actual cost. What is the incentive in that? You're making this a CPFF contract by adjusting the target cost to reflect the actual cost. A CPIF contract is supposed to be used to incentivize the contractor to perform at levels lower than the expected cost. That way they can earn a higher fee. You need to adjust the target cost before the costs are incurred, not after they've already been incurred.
  8. If you set the Target Cost to the actual costs being incurred, what makes this a CPIF contract and not a CPFF contract? You set the target cost in advance, which is used as the baseline to measure the actual costs against.
  9. pmh - don't sign the modification? Reporting to that level surely will increase the costs it takes you to compile your monthly billing and you should ask to adjust the contract price accordingly. Or submit an REA requesting the contract price be adjusted to accomodate the local clause.
  10. Hmm, nevermind. I re-read his comments and 15 USC § 637(a)(17), I'll take that back. As long as the portion of subcontract he referenced above to the large business is under 50% he should be fine, at least in terms of the non-manufacture rule. I initially read the sba guidance to say that if the company was subbing out 50% no matter what they needed the waiver.
  11. I'd have to somewhat disagree with that. It isn't even necessarily the relationships anymore, it is that those three companies have held the contracts for so long that they won't compete against each other even when the contract is put back up for competition. Without getting too far into detail regarding specific programs, these companies are making business decisions that the risk is too high to get into the programs now they are mature, even when given the chance to. It isn't that they don't have the relationship, it's just that they don't see the reward worth the risk of standing up an entire team to try to win it. These guys have the biggest connections, they can make the phone calls they need to. The relationship isn't the driving factor.
  12. That's true. I was assuming the minimum was satisfied upon award and that there was no minimum in each option year. As many have stated, you do as the contract states in terms of funding the minimum(s). I think the original poster was confusing an unpriced option with having to fund when exercising an option.
  13. Sure, you're exercising the option, that doesn't mean you are placing an order with it. Exercising the option just gives you the ability to utilize that CLIN for it's period of performance. It doesn't obligate any funding on the Governments behalf, it just signals the intent that the Government has a requirement for whatever that CLIN is for the period for which it is performed. Look at it this way: You have an ID/IQ contract. You execute actions from this contract based off of either delivery orders or task orders, correct? You would modify the base contract to exercise the option, and then issue a task or delivery order for any work to be performed on that CLIN.
  14. Oh, I can't wait for the public fallout of this one.
  15. Oyster - If you are wondering how knowledgeable the auditor is on what they have given you, give them a call and ask about the findings. What I've found in many recent audit reports issued is that DCAA is summarizing at a very top level with the blanket statement that copies of their work are available upon request for more specific information. Not that this is a bad thing, it can be very lengthy, but it seems to be hiding the true results of their work. Put in a call, ask them about their analysis they performed, you'll be very surprised at what you hear. I'm not sure DCAA is in that much of an upswing at the moment.
  16. But..but, Joel, we must spend all of our budget so they don't try and pare down our money in future years! We must spend it! At least, that is the common argument that you year, they have to meet their obligation rates. What a terrible metric to measure a program office by. It just invites waste.
  17. I don't think anyone understands what you are asking. You are stating that they represented themselves as a large business under hte FSS NAICS at time of award, so how would they receive any small business set-asides under said FSS?
  18. You have a multiple award contract, compete it. Why would you want to issue a multiple award contract and then start modifying existing delivery orders to add all of the additional work? Seems counter intuitive to me. The whole point of multiple award ID/IQ contracts was to promote competition so the Government wasn't setting aside hundreds of millions of dollars of repeating requirements to one company when multiple companies could continually satisfy the work.
  19. It sounds like your scenario, as you just described, was point #2 of my post. You're just negotiating the finer points of the SOW, not actively developing the SOW in conjunction with the program office. I don't think that is an issue; you should always try to negotiate the contract/requirements so that it is most advantageous for your company.
  20. This may be an overly simplistic view of it, but reject the invoice and make the contractor to submit a claim for it if they want the money. Put the onus on them to prove that they were directed to continue work. From the evidence you provided, it seems that since they weren't told to stop working that they continued without regard to the contract ceiling or period of performance. That sounds like contractor stupidity rather than the Government directing them to continue to work.
  21. SPS = PD2. Go to the Clauses tab, Click add text, choose Section B and choose it to appear at the bottom of the Section. Then type away at whatever you wish to appear that the standardized system does not have a spot for you to put in. Adding text is the easy way to allow yourself to type into the contract whatever you want to that the standard clauses may not include but is relevant for your situation.
  22. If you're using SPS, just go to the clauses tab when starting a modification and add a text box to Section B and select it to appear at the bottom of the section. Then add the necessary clause. If you're using something else, then good luck. It may help if you identify which contract system you are using as other users may be able to help. Ask around your office, most of the specialists are probably familiar with work-arounds to make things happen.
  23. Is the 8(a) under seperate contract with the program office to help with development of the requirements, or have you already set-aside for the 8(a) and you are now just negotiating parts of the SOW that they don't necessarily agree with? That's a big distinction you need to make. I think if it is the prior, which it sounds like you are implying, I'm not sure how that isn't a potential OCI issue. Even if you want to use the technicality of the word competitive being in there, it is certainly an implied confict of interest.
  24. It isn't just the PCO that needs to register in SPOT, the contractor has to register their personnel in SPOT as well I believe. The PCO then approves those personnel, or disapproves, for the travel in theater. Make sure you have the appropriate clauses incorporated into your contract before travel, and make sure they specify what your personnel can and cannot do/access when in theater. There are more specific clauses than FAR/DFAR, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. Haven't done it in two years. If I can remember I'll post the reference, but for now this will probably give you anything you need to know or point you in the right direction: http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/contracts/Pages/GCP.aspx
×
×
  • Create New...