Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Auburn, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,764 profile views
  1. I hadn't considered a partial termination ... that might be helpful as long as it doesn't cost the Government more money - I'm a steward to the taxpayer and am working hard to ensure the government isn't paying for something they don't need to pay for. My basis for repricing is just that - we are paying for ports that are inactive, and we shouldn't be paying for them. I understand we entered into this contract and an error was made in the port counts. It just needs to be corrected and I'm trying to find a way to correct it. It's a $3M contract with the intent to be $0 at the end of 3 years or sooner. Even though our telecom contracts end May 2020, this contract expires April 2021, but will likely end sooner. Seeking options from WIFCON... thanks!
  2. I have a contractor who was awarded an SBA 8(a) small business contract to support telecommunication services, awarded on a "per port" monitoring count basis, with FFP Monthly rates based on quantity of ports as described in the solicitation. Post Award we recognized that the "per port" monitoring count included inactive ports, which the Government cannot pay for since there is nothing to monitor. Being a telecommunication services contract, the intent of the solicitation was to remove all ports by May 2020. The per port count was provided by the PMO, who counted all ports rather than only "active" ports, an error. I have contacted the contractor and explained the error. The contractor is refusing to correct this stating their pricing was based on quantities as described in the solicitation, even knowing that the port count would decrease rapidly. We have staggered transition dates and many agencies have chosen not to transition. We are allowing them to adjust their "per port" rate to allow for the government error. In conversations they have been angry about this correction stating they have to monitor all ports, not only active ports, because they need to replace port cards if they fail. The Government has offered to allow them to re-use any existing inventory rather than replace, unless there is no inventory available... the government is allowing them to replace failed cards with refurbished cards since they are very outdated and there are no new cards to procure. I have reminded the contractor that the government can no longer pay for inactive ports and issued a pricing schedule to them over a week ago and requested they submit their adjusted pricing to me by Wednesday of this week. It's Friday and I haven't heard from them. I sent a reminder to them this morning, requesting "read receipt", and have received two notices that the email was read, but still no response. I know I'm a little early on this but need something to come back with to them. I've never had this happen before and am uncertain as how to handle it. Any kind suggestions would be welcome. Thank you
  3. Hello... I have a customer who is asking how we can provide a letter of authorization to obtain Government Pricing. We just awarded a contract to an SDVOSB. The Contractor needs to provide cell phones to his employees and other supplies. Without using GSA Schedules, he would like to go to a dealer, "Verizon" for example to obtain government pricing on the phones. I can't seem to find any authority for this ... has anyone else heard of this? Is there a way to do it? Attached is a sample letter they provided me. Is there any authority that permits this? Thank you LOA Example.docx
  4. On 9/20/17 I followon awarded a task order which was protested on 9/29 based on an argument between the two contractors who responded. Award was contingent on availability of Funds which was received 10/5/17. On 11/13/17 the protest was withdrawn. In the meantime, the existing task order was extended 4 months to keep the help 24/7/365 desk running. During that extension, the Program Office reduced Staffing from 12 (which is what the Contractors bid on) to 7 based on funding cuts. What options are available to me to award to this contractor without risking another protest? I have a few thoughts, neither of which I'm fond of.... 1. Resolicit with the new level of effort and offer both contractors an opportunity to re-propose. 2. Award at the proposed level of effort for the 3 month base period, then at option reduce the level of effort bilaterally. Problem is that 5 employees have been released and may already have jobs and won't be willing to work then I potentially have to terminate for default which is not a good option. Can anyone else think of other options?
  5. I am getting ready to award a task order under Connections II for an enterprise land mobile radio system. I wrote Davis Bacon and Service Contract Acts into the RFP. The Contractor submitted a proposal stating the following: "Our subcontractors have assured us that none of their employees supporting these requirements are covered by the Davis Bacon Act. However, if it turns out that any of their next tier subcontractors will be covered under this Act, they will comply with all the requirements of the Davis Bacon Act." According to FAR 22.404-9 22.404-9 -- Award of Contract Without Required Wage Determination. (a) If a contract is awarded without the required wage determination (i.e., incorporating no determination, containing a clearly inapplicable general wage determination, or containing a project determination which is inapplicable because of an inaccurate description of the project or its location), the contracting officer shall initiate action to incorporate the required determination in the contract immediately upon discovery of the error. If a required wage determination (valid determination in effect on the date of award) is not available, the contracting officer shall expeditiously request a wage determination from the Department of Labor, including a statement explaining the circumstances and giving the date of the contract award. ( The contracting officer shall -- (1) Modify the contract to incorporate the required wage determination (retroactive to the date of award) and equitably adjust the contract price if appropriate; or (2) Terminate the contract. My question is, If the exclusion of Davis Bacon is an error made by the Contractor, 1. Is the Government required to comply with ((1) above and incorporate retroactively, or 2. Because of the Contractor's error, can the Government, prior to award, inform the Contractor that if there is a change requiring DB, the Government will incorporate latest WD without price change, and should there be a WD revision during the remainder of the requirement, a change in pricing may be applicable at that time? 3. As this will only be incorporated at the time it is determined DB is going to be required, wouldn't application of DB at the time of the mod to add DB WD be appropriate? 4. My understanding is that Davis Bacon is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor under Connections II. Is it possible that the second tier subcontractor be allowed to comply with all the requirements of the Davis Bacon Act? Because the above is silent on fault, I assume Question 1 is applicable and I can't find anything that speaks to Question 4. Thank you
  6. No, 52.242-17 is not included. This is a Firm Fixed Price Non-Construction Commercial services contract.
  7. Supplies and Services, Fixed Price. ATO is not mentioned in the contract.
  8. I have a project which needs to be extended 60 days due to the Government's inability to provide final Authority to Operate (ATO) on a Land Mobile Radio project that expires 28 June. The delayed ATO has resulted in delays in final cutover which was scheduled in May, and ultimately final acceptance of a $multimillion project before PoP End. It was the team's hope that the ATO would come through in a timely fashion and still allow for final acceptance by 28 June, but all are finally in agreement that it cannot happen. Therefore, the Government is requesting the extension. The Contractor says they can extend for 60 days but cannot advise the cost for the extension at this time, and requests to be able to add costs when costs are determined during the extension period. I disagree with their approach. They know how much it cost to cancel the cutover (rescheduling resources), and I do not understand why they cannot provide a cost for this extension. If it is travel costs they are concerned about, then that is not an effect of the extension since the CLIN is already built in and funds are available for the cutover that was anticipated in May. If it's simply reallocation of resources then that should be fairly simple to price (IMO). I can't seem to even get the Contractor to identify what the cost(s) might be since they are dealing with 3 different subs on this project. If I cannot get the contractor to provide costs, what are my options? I can do a no cost extension, since the extension is in the best interest of the government on a $multimillion project that won't receive final acceptance due to GOV Delays. But when the Contractor comes back in with additional costs, and they will, would they need to submit as an Equitable Adjustment or Claim? I don't see how I can add PoP Extension costs after the fact, especially when we know there will be added costs. Any assistance you can offer would be appreciated. My apologies for sounding like a Newbie but this is just one of those areas I haven't had to deal with yet. Thank you in advance...
  9. The customer has two possible solutions with installation on one of two servers. They would prefer the solution on the higher end server, but is concerned it may not fit within the budget, so if that is the case the lesser server would suffice. They are intending to purchase the new server. Both small businesses are capable of fulfilling the requirements of either solution for a LSC VoIP System upgrade. I hope this helps...
  10. I have a PWS which will be solicited under an existing Part 16 ID/IQ Contract (NETCENTS) for the Air Force as a Small Business Set-Aside (of which there are only two small businesses). My customer is requesting an upgrade to their VoIP system and has two alternative solutions which allows for installation on one of two types of servers. One server which they are uncertain will fit within their budget, the other server they believe will fit within their budget. How can I make this work for my customer so they receive the best solution at the best price? I've considered Best Value with Cost equal to Technical Capabilities but am hung up on the 3rd discriminating factor. I've considered LPTA which obviously won't work. Can I solicit for the higher priced option, and upon receipt of quotes (if the pricing does not fit within the budget), negotiate with all offerors to propose pricing using the lesser server? Or should I just tell my customer to “figure it out”? There just seems to be no easy way to know if their preferred option will fit within their budget, and there is uncertainty of additional funding. Thank you in advance for any guidance you can offer.
  • Create New...