Jump to content

Chris M

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,450 profile views
  1. The contract had a PWS and specific tasks for the contractor to accomplish, however, none of the tasks were accomplished within the period of performance. Basis for terminating the contract would be the validity of the contract. By the FAR definition, a contract is a "mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services and the buyer to pay for them". No services were furnished by the seller. Further, the basics of a contract are offer, acceptance, consideration, legal purpose, and competent parties. In this situation, what consideration did the Government recieve? Wouldn't the lack of consideration be suitable grounds for terminating the contract and recouping the funds? Aren't volunteer services an ADA violation?
  2. Scenario: 1280 IT “Prepaid Consulting Credits” (credits are the equivalent of hours) purchased as a FFP subscription. PoP on the contract is 25 Sept 2013 – 31 January 2014. FY13 O&M Funds used. Invoice was submitted 01 October 2013 and paid 15 October 2013. The contractor did not perform any of the 1280 “Credits” during the period of performance (or to date for that matter). Contractor has stated they view the “credits” are still valid for use (their normal procedure is credits are valid for 12 months). Requiring Activity obviously still wants the contractor to perform. Issues: - Bona fide need – bought this with FY13 funds, it’s the second half of FY14 and no actions have been completed by the contractor. - Contract PoP has lapsed, invoice has been paid = final acceptance of service? Even though nothing was done? - If the contractor does perform now, after the PoP, is this an ADA violation? I’m not the KO. But I do feel the contractor performing now, after the PoP is inappropriate (bona fide need, voluntary services, contract PoP has lapsed). My instinct is that the appropriate course of action would be for the contractor to not perform, Terminate for Convenience, and the Gov’t to try to recoup the money collected by the contractor through negotiations (or possibly litigation). Any thoughts? Need more information?
  3. I couldn't agree more with Vern. Maybe it’s just me, but does the idea seem like a satire that belongs in the jokes thread vice here?
  4. H2H - the contractor has delivered the reports it said it would deliver, however, it did not deliver them when they said they would deliver them. Therefore they did not fulfill their contract obligations. The item delivered is only one part of their obligation, timliness is the another. In this case the CDRL apparently said submissions monthly, or a specific date, and the contractor did not meet that date. Why should the Govt continue to allow a contractor to deliver at their convienance vice the contracted time period without adequate consideration?
  5. And in the process let yet another contractor not fulfill their obligations to Government while the Government is still stuck paying them full price - weak. The Government didn't get what they contracted for at the time they contracted for it - bottom line. Relaxing requirements is what makes acquisition programs look like jokes! It's nice to see someone in this profession try to keep a contractor accountable. 52.216-8 Fixed Fee - I assume this is in the contract - states, " The Contracting Officer shall release 75 percent of all fee withholds under this contract after receipt of an adequate certified final indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical completion of this contract, provided the Contractor has satisfied all other contract terms and conditions, including the submission of the final patent and royalty reports, and is not delinquent in submitting final vouchers on prior years’ settlements." They haven't satisfied all other contract terms and conditions. Coordinate with DCMA to withhold payment of the fee - notify the contractor of this. Execute the modification extending the PoP for the demo. Wait for them to submit a claim under the disputes clause. Meanwhile they don't collect any fee until they negotiate consideration. Document CPARS if applicable.
  6. If you're looking for something reasonable to compare to or use to estimate you could use the D.S.S.R Living Quaters Allowance (LQA) and post differential rates. These are the rates used for Gov't civilian compensation while serving in an overseas location. The Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) says to use the DSSR for overseas. Post differential is applied to disposable income. http://aoprals.state.gov/web920/location.asp?menu_id=95
  7. We all know we have the ability, contractually, to assist the powers that be in reducing contract spending. I think it's more a matter of getting the request from the requiring activity to actually issue the modifications necessary to reduce the spending. Is it just me but when I hear the talking heads discuss 'reducing government spending' I automatically think of how much we spend on contracts? (probably because my profession is doing just that, spending the Government's money) But no one in Congress wants to reduce the spending in their jusidiction, "we need to reduce spending" (yelling voice)..... "in someone else's jusidiction" (under their breath voice)
  8. I posted this to another thread a few weeks ago (http://www.wifcon.co...?showtopic=1735) but never received a response so I thought I would give it another shot, two questions. (1) Views on the practice of not entering a date (i.e. 15 June 2014) or a period of time (90 days after the end of the ordering period) in 52.216-22(d) but entering something along the lines of, "end of the final task order's period of performance”? I'm not a big fan of using language similar to the above as I feel there should be a definitive end to the period of time of a contractor's obligations under a basic contract; setting scope of the contract with regard to time. (2) (contract admin question) What about modifying the date in 52.216-22(d) subsequent to the ordering period's expiration? For instance, ordering period ended 01 July 2012, task order was issued for 180 days on 30 June, 52.216-22(d) states 180 days, but on 21 August 2012 a KO tries to modify 52.216-22(d) date to 365 days to issue a subsequent mod to the aformentioned task order to extend it to 365 days. Contract was via full and open competition. My thought is sole source extension? Dynamics Corp. of America v. United States, 389 F.2d 424, 430-33 (Ct. Cl. 1968) (treat orders like options) in combination with Major Contracting Services Inc. B-401472 (option is a sole source if it wasn't evaluated at the contract award, requires J&A).
  9. What is everyone’s view on the practice of not entering a date (i.e. 15 June 2014) or a period of time (90 days after the end of the ordering period) in 52.216-22(d) but entering something along the lines of, "end of the final task order's period of performance”? I'm not a big fan of using language similar to the above as I feel there should be a definitive end to the period of time of a contractor's obligations under a basic contract; setting scope of the contract with regard to time. However, my current command and my previous command have made it policy language similar to the above stated. Echoing what Vern said earlier, I don’t think there is a prohibition on what you insert in 52.216-22(d). But considering a scenario where a non-severable order is issued on the last day of a contract’s ordering period (say the ordering period was 5 years) with a period of performance of 3 years for the order, the contractor’s obligations have stretched 8 years under a contract that was solicited with a 5 year ordering period. Not to mention if options are used on the order. Just curious what everyone’s view would be on the above?
  10. I assume the RFP contains provision 52.216-1? Does this provision state the Government anticipates the award of a CPFF term type contract? Or where are you getting that it is a term form? FAR 16.306(d) defines both completion and term form CPFF contracts. Under completion, FAR 16.306(d)(1), it describes the situation in which the Government may require more effort without additional fee. This is a "cost-overrun" situation; allowable costs in excess of the orignal cost estimate to complete the original end result. Under FAR 16.306(d)(2) it defines a term CPFF as a number of hours to be perfromed in a definite time period. The FAR goes on to state, " Renewal for further periods of performance is a new acquisition that involves new cost and fee arrangements." The Government has the requirement for X LOE during Y PoP. The request for additional LOE during the Y PoP that you don't want to miscosntrued is originating from where? You or the Government?
  11. Assuming you are DoD, then you are right. The guidance Don mentioned is incorporated into the DFARS via 215.300 (an agency supplement as pointed out by Vern). The guidance states it is not applicable to FAR Part 12 Streamline Acquisitions (FAR Subpart 12.6) and FAR Part 13 buys. FAR Part 12 buys, as a whole, are not exempt from the guidance, so if you are not using FAR Subpart 12.6, and the buy is greater than SAT, then you need to follow the guide and prepare a SSP. Again this is for DoD because the guide is incorporated through the agency supplement.
  12. Has anyone had experience with a prime contractor trying to rely on a subcontractor's top secret clearance? The prime has a secret clearance. The contract would have a top secret DD254 and top secret would be required on day one of performance. Prime has proposed using the subcontractor for the work requiring top secret. I geuss I'm just kind of thrown off cause the prime, performing on their own, would not be able to perform the tasking required on day one. However, they have proposed to utilize a subcontractor that has a top secret clearance until they obtain their top secret clearance. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
  13. thanks everyone! Vern i appreciate the CPD references.
  • Create New...