Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Darby8001

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/04/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Antonio, Tx
  1. Ultimately is there really any difference between the two? The end result is the same.
  2. True, but as Vern pointed out those cases are not binding and the two entities dont always agree. In reality how would any potential offeror even know the reason for the change in proposal due date absent you telling them? I sense you are leading up to a larger point...?
  3. Sure, an agency may properly extend its closing date at any time in order to enhance competition. See - Varicon Int’l, Inc.; MVM, Inc., B-255808, B-255808.2
  4. CardinalChange, I acutally finished 77 Days in September, yesterday. For whatever morbid reason I have long been a fan of post-apocalyptic/dystopian stories. "Survivors", by James Wesley Rawles is very good as well as is "Lights Out" by David Crawford(although very wordy). Last month I read "The Hunger Games" Trilogy by Suzanne Collins. Although written for a teen audience, this is the best book(s) I have read in years. I will have to check out the others you mentioned. Ever since I purchased a kindle my appetite for reading increased tenfold.
  5. "One Second After" by William R. Forstchen - Story about a Nuclear device detonated in the atmosphere above America causing and EMP and to failure of all electronic systems in the country. Interesting read and more than and little disturbing.
  6. Sounds like two seperate issues. Accept the descope of the work, 44 recepticles for $7,800.00. If you already have coordination that the GOV doesnt require them and both parties agree to the amount of the descope the KO will be hard pressed to really push the issue. Next address the additional work seperatly with a proposal for the change and negotiate the amount like you would any other change. There are alot of KO's that try to be bullies, just dont allow yourself to be bullied. The KO will likely back down on the demands.
  7. If the solicitation is for 30 days there is nothing stoping the contractor from turning it in in 2 days or whenever they want. If it is sole source and the contractor turns it in in 2 days I would imagine the CO would not sit around until day 30 to begin looking at it.
  8. Sounds to me like you are just looking for regular progress payments, the clause 52.232-16 is allowed for construction, commodities, and services. There is not really much difference between the three when it comes down to applying the progress payment. As a certain percentage of the service is complete to the satisfaction of the contract and government, then allow for payment of that percentage. If the service has not been provided satisfactorily then do not pay for it until it is. In your case it appears you have the following requirement. Dismantle, evaluate, pack/crate/transport to another location, reassemble and test. So once the item(s) are dismantled then pay for it, evaluated pay for it, etc?.. Obviously you will want to have a mutually agreeable percentage for each activity and some agreement to frequency of billing, i.e. once a month. With the example given I don?t see a need for LD?s. Remember LD?s are intended to help the government recoupe damages for late delivery. If you are intending to use LD?s in a punitive fashion, that is incorrect.
  9. I am with Seeker on this one as well. It is just a FFP contract with some fancy language to trick people in to think they are getting some new great idea. Suppose you had a FFP service contract to move a couch from one building to the next at a rate of $100. Until you satisfied the SOW and moved the couch you are not due any money but once you moved that couch successfully, as required by the SOW, then you would be due $100. In Vern?s question ?Offeror X proposes price of $0.00 with proposed incentive that it be paid a stipulated amount upon 100 percent successful performance." For sake of comparison let?s say that the stipulated amount is $100. Until Offeror X meets the requirement of the SOW and moves the couch he is owed nothing. Once he does, then 100% of $100 is owed. The two scenarios are the same just framed in different words. Also this scenario meets the FAR?s description of FFP See FAR 16.202-1 A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor?s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. Vern, you also asked: ?Another question would be: Would the award of the contract constitute an obligation of appropriated funds? Would the CO have to record an obligation by putting a fund cite on the contract document? Or would the award be only a contingent liability?? I would say the CO would need to address how this contract is described. Since I have already stated that I believed it is nothing more than a regular FFP then yes it would constitute an obligation of APF and the CO would need record the obligation accordingly. In the end I believe the agency was incorrect in assigning any extra credit.
  10. Don, You swayed me back the other direction. I recind my previous post. Perhaps I was too hasty in my review of the case.
  11. I have been following this thread for a couple of days and would have to say I generally agreed with Don as he made the more compelling argument. However, I did come across the following case that specifically discusses FSS BPA?s and my opinion was swayed. See AINS, Inc. B-400760.2; B-400760.3, conveniently posted on WIFCON here: http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/4007602.pdf The specific quote that changed my opinion is: ?Although Privasoft, Inc. submitted the original quotation, under the facts here we see no basis to object to the establishment of a BPA with Privasoft Corp., the vendor holding the FSS contract. A BPA is not a contract, and orders placed against an FSS BPA are placed against the underlying FSS contract.?
  12. You continue to say that you can?t progress pay service contracts but provide no reference. Please take a look at the clause matrix at FAR 52.301 it clearly identifies that fixed price service contract can have progress payments. I would venture to say most people are more familiar with options on service and commodities contracts that construction. I am just speaking from personal opinion though.
  13. I have to disagree with you that there isn?t a progress payment clause for services. Take another look at your clause matrix and the prescriptions in the clauses; 52.232-13 through 17 for example. Your example of the grass cutting could go the same for construction. What good does it do us to build 30% of a building? An example of a service that I could see progress payments on is building demolition. Imagine a contract to demolish a large structure like a bridge or hospital. Assuming we are paying them not vice versa wouldn?t you think progress payments were appropriate? Do you have a reference stating bid alternatives are only for construction?
  14. I still don?t see a problem using bid alternates for services. Perhaps you could provide a reference that ties it specifically only to construction. I think many times offices assume certain practices are for one thing only. For example, someone once told me that sealed bidding could only be used for construction. On another note you mentioned progress payments on contracts for services. Why couldn?t you do them?
  15. dkubis, Are you talking about options, as in, FAR part 17? If so, I dont see any problem with using them. See the definition of "option" at FAR 2.101. ?Option? means a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Government may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract, or may elect to extend the term of the contract.
  • Create New...