Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

TC2012

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TC2012

  • Rank
    New
  1. I believe that you are required by FAR to prepare a single justification in your described case. My situation was different. I don't believe you need a single source J&A to include in a construction specification the brand name of the system manufacturer who's existimg system is currently installed that must be expanded to meet the government's current requirement. On the other hand, if you are introducing a new product into a construction contract by brand name, then you would need to create a J&A to justify why that brand is the only brand that will meet the government's requirement
  2. Retredfed The installers qualification was placed in the specification to cover our backside. You would assume that anyone bidding to expand a security system would be qualified or they would not bid. Oh, but that is incorrect, as contractors do it everyday and then the GC is stuck with a contractor who is incapable of performing the required work. The specification is intended to ensure that the bidder understands you must be qualified to perform these services. The consequences is that the GC remains liable for completing the work and it may cost the GC more money than it had in the bid to
  3. The existing security system is a mandated qualified system for the type of Air Force facility undergoing expansion. The specification provided the brand name of this existing system and then provided detailed performance UFGS performance specification that was carefully drafted by the military for these systems, As you might be aware the drawings and connections required for this type of system are not posted on the internet and most probably closely held by the manufacturer. With that being said, it remains the responsibility of the subcontractor bidding the expansion of this system to be q
  4. Joel, The issue remains in the discussion phase and has not developed into a certified claim. Yes, lawyers are available, but the contractor has not yet turned this into a claim. I believe it maybe somewhat premature to involve them at this stage in the discussion. Lawyers want the complete picture and we have yet to get the contractors final decision to proceed with the work as specified or fight through a claim. We hope to convince the GC that is arguments are flawed and if it choose to file a claim, it would be rejected unless some other information presented itself. You are singing th
  5. I am standing for the proposition the this is the contractor's problem to solve within the contract as written. The bidder should have verified that it was fully capable of expanding the existing brand name system prior to submitting its bid to the GC .
  6. Vern, I completely agree, it does not make sense. However, this is the basis of the GC arguments. The government should have told in its single source justification required by FAR, that this brand name manufacturer has proprietary rights to all of the designs, components and drawings concerning its security system and they are the only ones who may modify it, unless you are able to get this information from them. Just because the government purchased and installed a brand name system does not give it the rights to the detailed technical information of the system. Information that would be re
  7. Vern, How about this statement: WARNING: If you don't have the necessary experience and knowledge to expand the existing OEM system, request that you not submit a bid. Because if you submit a bid, and you don't have the expertise and technical ability, the general contractor will still be subject to providing the contractor that is capable to complete the required expansion under the contract, at no addition cost to the government.
  8. Only example I can readily think of is when an existing brand name system needs to be expanded or modified. Existing facilities are being altered and existing systems in those facilities are being modified all of the time under construction projects. . i.e. heating, cooling, etc. -- usually these types of system have multiple sources who can perform the required modifications. On the other hand, when you have a highly technical system, only the OEM knows the combination or has the technical knowledge and ability to change or expand the existing system. Most contractors who normally work wit
  9. Thanks Joel, and I agree with you. The subcontractor is qualified security systems, but not this brand of security system because it does not have the proprietary wiring information for the existing system and the government does not own that information. The system is a commercial item and the government does not own the data rights to the systems design as the system was not designed specifically for our application. Thanks again for all your input.
  10. I think perhaps the key to this issue may be found in FAR 52.236-5 -- Material and Workmanship. In a construction contract a brand name may be inserted provided it also provides the required salient features or performance requirements of an acceptable system. The inclusion of the existing brand name security system without a single source justification set a standard of the existing system quality and advises potential bidders of the brand name of the existing security system. The specifications did not specifically indicate that the brand name was the only product that could possibly be u
  11. Joel, yes this was an IFB and the bid was lump sum. The security system was included in the lump sum bid and a separate price breakdown was not requested. The government would not have any idea of what firms were bidding on the security system. This was a subcontractor who bid to an electrical subcontractor.
  12. Everything above is correct. I feel the contractor is trying to cover itself with the excuse that the government did not issue a sole source justification and therefore, we are off the hook to provide what the specifications require. I was a Contracting Officer on construction contracts for over 25 years and I am aware how GC's attempt top cover their backside when they screwed up and find out they have a bad bid price from a subcontractor. I don't see a tie between the sole source justification and subsequent compliance with a non-defective specification after contract award. It is my opin
  13. Joel, I agree the A/E should have advised the KO. However, we must first find an A/E who knows enough or should have been advised by KO to provide notification of a single source installer. Equally, referencing FAR 52.236-3 The contractor by submitting its bid acknowledges that it has taken steps reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and location of the work, and that it has investigated and satisfied itself as to the general and local conditions which can affect the work or its cost, including but not limited to (1) conditions bearing upon transportation, disposal, handling, and sto
×
×
  • Create New...