Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rios0311

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Washington, D.C.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,386 profile views
  1. I agree with bob7947. The contractor must first figure out the amount of the refundable tax credit to which it is entitled under the FFCRA (Division G) before it can seek relief under section 3610 of the CARES Act (Division A). That shouldn't be too difficult to do; however, because the CARES Act was enacted in March and FFCRA did not go into effect until April 1, contractors will have to look to CARES to recover reimbursement for the cost of paid leave they provided to their employees during parts of March to keep them in a ready state and to protect contractor-employees and federal employees. Of course, other conditions must be met, too to recover under CARES. The reason for the paid leave must have been because the job site (e.g., building) was closed or because other restrictions were in place, AND the contractor's work was not portable, meaning the work could not be done remotely. For example, we instructed employees and contractors not to come to our building if they were exhibiting flu-like symptoms, if they had been tested for COVID-19, tested positive for COVID-19 or if they felt ill, or if they had been in contact with anyone that had these symptoms. If their work was not portable (e.g., maintenance technicians, lighting technicians), the restriction we imposed entitles them to recover under CARES. Also noteworthy, FFCRA also provides funds to employers to allow its employees to take leave for childcare reasons if a child's school is closed. However, CARES does not appear to provide authority to reimburse contractors for leave they give their employees to stay home for childcare reasons. So, unless FFCRA is applicable retroactively, contractors who provided paid leave for childcare reasons in March may not be able to recover under CARES.
  2. Circling back to report that after reviewing several active FAPIIS records, we found that it is common for the CO to attach the termination notice and the termination modification. I didn't see an instance of a CO posting a copy of the CO's memo to file, but that does not mean it isn't permissible. The contractor has a 7-day period to review the information and assert to the CO that the posted information is covered by a disclosure exemption under FOIA. At that point, the CO must within 7 calendar days remove the posting while it determines whether the information is releasable or protected. If it isn't, the information can be re-posted. So it seems that the CO can pretty much post anything it deems appropriate for other agencies to review when making responsibility determinations, unless the contractor claims the information is exempted from release (and the CO confirms this). It is worthy to note that the information is publicly viewable 14 days after the CO posts it in FAPIIS.
  3. Thank you, Joel. I was hoping to also elicit some feedback about the appropriateness of posting the termination notice or the memo to file.
  4. When reporting a termination for cause in FAPIIS, what documentation is appropriate or permissible for the contracting officer to attach to the record? For example, should or can the contracting officer attach the termination notice to the FAPIIS record if it explains in detail the basis for the termination? What about the CO's memorandum to the contract file; should or can it be attached to the FAPIIS record? If it is appropriate or permissible to attach these documents to the record, is it advisable to do so? Why or why not?
  5. So true! I'll be back with more questions or with updates once the dust settles.
  6. Jacques, this is incredibly helpful. Thank you. To both you and Retreadfed, I edited my original post in hopes of making it clearer. I deleted some details that perhaps didn't matter much, so I hope it makes better sense now. In any event, your responses provided me with what I needed. Much appreciated!
  7. Thank you, ji20874. There are no excess costs that would result from exercising the options because pricing on those services is similar on both contracts. The agency is only looking at the implementation (base period), because those were costs the agency should not have had to incur again. But you might be right in that the agency may not be able to recover them. Your possible approach seems reasonable too. The agency didn't anticipate being in that situation, so they did not plan for it.
  8. Question Has anyone come across a case where the COFC or one of the BCAs sustained or awarded reprocurement costs for a procurement that was conducted in anticipation of needing to terminate a contract; i.e., before the contract was terminated? Scenario The agency enters into contract A for a critical system. After its partial implemention and placement into operation, any lapse in the system's operation would lead to disastrous consequences for the agency. Although the system is deployed with some core functionality, the contractor is still working to complete the configuration of all of the system's features and capabilities in order to fully implement the system. During the course of the contractor's configuration and implementation of the system, the contractor begins to demonstrate deficient performance. Its lack of diligence and repeated failures indicate that the agency cannot be assured of the contractor's performance. The agency begins to consider whether it may need to terminate contract A if the contractor does not complete the system's implementation by the contract's completion date. However, the agency recognizes that it cannot terminate the contract without having a backup (replacement) system configured and ready to be placed into operation in the event that it determines that it needs to terminates the contract. The agency conducts a new procurement and enters into contract B for a backup system and successfully implements the system, but does not place it into operation. Shortly thereafter, contractor A defaults, so the agency places the backup system into operation, the CO terminates contract A and assesses reprocurement costs (against contractor A) for the cost of contract B's implementation phase. The CO assesses reprocurement costs on the principle that it would not have had to incur costs on a second procurement for a backup system if contractor A had fulfilled its obligations. The agency's risk mitigation strategy to award a second contract for a backup system seems reasonable based on the contractor's deficient performance and the contractor's eventual default seems to validate the agency's decision to procure a replacement system as a precautionary measure. But how likely is the agency to prevail in recouping reprocurement costs for contract B, which the agency awarded prior to terminating contract A? Is anyone familiar with a similar case, or with any case in which reprocurement costs were assessed for a procurement conducted prior to terminating a contract?
  9. Retreadfed, FAR 12.403(c)(2) states: The Government’s rights after a termination for cause shall include all the remedies available to any buyer in the marketplace. The Government’s preferred remedy will be to acquire similar items from another contractor and to charge the defaulted contractor with any excess reprocurement costs together with any incidental or consequential damages incurred because of the termination. Seems too simple. Is this what you were looking for, or did I misunderstand your question?
  10. Joel, I'm not teleworking! Retreadfed, I will leave it at " all rights and remedies provided by law", which would include case law. Unfortunately, I did not select the most anonymous user name when I set up my account years ago, so I prefer not to go into much detail at this point, since anyone can be reading this and could use anything here to strengthen their own arguments. We are confident in our position, but uncertain whether we will prevail in obtaining reprocurement costs. To clarify, we will only pursue reprocurement costs associated with the portion of the new contract attributable only to the implementation portion, which we would not have had to pay again if we remained with the current provider. However, the cost of the new solution will actually cost less on a yearly basis once it is in production (operational) mode, so we are aware that this will factor into any decision to award costs. Again, I apologize if I don't stay on top of the conversation, but I am at work and constantly running to meetings. However, I am checking in every now and then. If a case gets published, I will update the thread (if the thread hasn't been locked) with a link to the decision.
  11. We did in fact re-procure a backup system anticipating the potential for needing to terminate the contract in order to have a seamless transition. Not having a seamless transition would subject us to significant liability from other parties. However, you are correct. No guarantee that we will recover that cost. At this point, we are just happy to be moving on. We will make as strong a case as possible.
  12. I appreciate everyone's feedback and the discussion, and I regret that I did not check back here to contribute further before going on holiday. Here's what we did shortly after my last post: 1. Cure notice is not required for late delivery, but we issued what amounts to a cure notice, which specified the deficiencies, provided a new delivery date with 30-days to correct the deficiencies, and advised of possible termination for cause. 2. Because we could not afford a gap in performance of the critical IT system, we procured a replacement system as a backup in anticipation of needing to transition to it. Because we were unsure whether the current contractor would come through and deliver, we structured the replacement contract with a base period consisting only of the configuration and implementation phase. Exercising the first option would place the system into production (full operation). 3. When we did not receive the completed IT system on the new delivery date, we issued a show-cause notice, which informed the contractor that we planned to terminate the contract for cause, unless the contractor showed cause why we should not terminate on that basis. 3. The contractor did not show adequate cause for late delivery, so we decided to terminate the contract and will exercise the option on the replacement solution to bring it online while we transition off the deficient system. We will leave corresponding past performance and will pursue re-procurement costs.
  13. ji20874, yes, the CO has conferred with legal counsel, but the attorney had not encountered this situation in the past. Despite this, the attorney agreed that we should be able to do this unilaterally. I cannot respond to the remainder of your questions without starting a new thread, since it opens up an entirely new topic. More to come! Retreadfed, the intent is to re-establish a delivery schedule that is 30-days from the date of the notice. In other words, 30 days from today. They've had their 90 days, plus another 7 months worth of delays. We have notified them that we've moved the delivery date 30 days from today and may terminate for cause if they don't deliver.
  14. Retreadfed, thank you for commending. 30 days because they have already received 7 months worth of implied or constructive extensions and each time they promise to deliever something, it is only a couple of days or weeks away.
  • Create New...