Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thank you everyone for your opinion! We will see what legal has to say. I lean more toward not doing the mods than I do toward doing the mod but I am in a tight spot so whatever the result I just want to have as much back-up when I have to tell the rock that it's a no go. Joel, just for records sake I respect and value the PCO - one of the few bright spots in this agency's contracting world
  2. Thanks for responding so soon. I will try to answer everything to give you a clear picture. The order bought a labor category per month for 12 months...e.i. "CLIN 0001 - Secretary1 - 12 months, CLIN 0002 Secretary2, 24 months (2 Ea Secretary2 x 12 months each)" etc. Pricing is Firm Fixed Price Months, billing is per month and the task order has been funding in full with FY12 funds. Period of Performance started in FY12 and finishes in FY13. The contractor "fully staffed" the required labor catagories but billing did not begin until the staff was on site. Therefore the months that went by during the recruitment of staff and the security checks of the staff will never be billed against the contract. This lag in billing was expected and not default on the part of the contractor. So yes, the funding was obligated but will not be expended during the contract period. As for the other question the IDIQ contract is owned by my agency but was written in a different office in my region. It is not an IAA situation. The other office has the contract and I only have bits and pieces of it (that sounds bad, I know, but we worked together to get the TOs in place appropriately and IG has had the contract since - The file is to big to email and I am just awaiting IG to release in our contract system).The ordering has already taken place and now we disagree about who has the authority to make post award decisions on the task order.
  3. Hello Vern and all! I would appreciate your input on this issue - of course it is also going to legal for their opinion but you have more contract knowledge in your big toe than our legal has in the whole system, sadly to say. I thought I might get myself an educated answer here for my own peace of mind regardless of what legal has to say. So I am stuck between a rock and hard place; I have a task order written off an IDIQ base contract. The TO was written in FY 12. The CLINS are for people written in the quantity of "months". Each month was priced off of 40 hours per work week per person. Now we are in FY13 and have another 6 months of PoP remaining. The vendor has informed me that due to the start up of recruitment, security and placement we will have FY12 funds remaining that will be unbilled and that there is enough to add more people for the remaining 6 months if we would like. THe "rock" argues that we purchased man-hours toward an effort and in order to recover those man hours we should be able to legally add additional people. The "hard place" argues that additional people is considered outside scope and new work and that it would be a violation of the bona fide needs rule to use "left-over" FY12 funds to add additional people. Who is right? Second side question if you do not mind. The "hard place" also insist that since they are the CO of the IDIQ they get to make CO decisions on the TOs. I believe that once the TO is signed by me (another CO) that the CO decisions fall on me, unless they are a direct violation of the base IDIQ. Who is right on this issue? As always, thank you!!
  4. I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs currently but have worked at other various federal agencies, both DoD and Civilian, I am aware of, and have done, congressional notifications over $X.0M ($10.0M?) but I can only find reference of this type of notification for cancellations of multiyear over $12.5 (17.1) and release of information congress (5.4). I also did a search in the VAAR (nothing) and DFARS (for a sanity check only). Where is it mandatory to provide a congressional notification of multi-million dollar awards? Thanks!!!
  5. Hoping to get Vern's two cents here: I am in a regional procurement office. My training officer is trying to avoid processing approx 480 SF-182s. He is requesting an IDIQ contract so that each of our field offices can write Task Orders against it instead. The requested training is a series of eight classes at a non-governmental college to tranfer 1105s to 1102. According to OPM a SF182 can be used if each course is under the SAT (among other rules). The training officer feels that this rule of non-competition (his interpretation, not mine) should transfer over to the contracting world. I believe that this should be competed! What do you think??
  • Create New...