Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kevlar51

  1. PBP Milestone - Mulitiple Payments

    That was my gut reaction when I started reading the OP's post. But how do you reconcile that with the DFARS clause 252.232-7012 that Joel quoted? Payments cannot exceed cost incurred (in this DOD contract, at least).
  2. PBP Milestone - Mulitiple Payments

    Michele G: Is the following along the lines of what you're explaining: Payment milestones for a Four-Legged Dinner Table (total price $1000): 1. $600 upon ordering screws 2. $200 upon ordering wood 3. $100 upon assembly 4. $100--final delivery And the contractor can't invoice for the first payment event because they've only incurred $5 in costs. So instead, they're basically submitting monthly cost reimbursable invoices on whatever other work they do up until they hit $600?
  3. As others have said, nothing is contractually/legally stopping vendors from proposing wages higher than what might be in a wage determination. But competition (especially in a LPTA procurement) will generally keep them from doing so. You can put language in there about allowing for escalation, but it's not necessary for the reason I just stated (i.e. it's already allowed). A awardee later coming to you to explain why the rates they proposed under a FFP solicitation aren't sufficient is a different issue. They can certainly still pay their staff more, and they have to run their own cost/benefit analysis before deciding to submit proposed pricing. And "bid low to win and get the Gov't to increase the price later" isn't a sound plan. All that considered, if staff turnover is enough concern, then perhaps LPTA isn't the best approach for you.
  4. I agree with the bulk of your post except, generally, with this part. I can think of plenty of reasons why a vendor might rather be a prime, than a sub. Large primes especially tend to have rather inflexible one-size-fits-all purchasing systems that place a great deal of administrative burden on their subs--without regard to whether the government places similar demands on the prime.
  5. It's certainly possible, and I'd like to think the CO should know how to accomplish this. We don't have anywhere near enough information on your client's contract to know the correct path. Some words of caution: Be careful about going around your client's back to talk to the end customer, especially to cut out a chunk of your client's business. Also be prepared to potentially not get award of the new, separate contract (assuming it gets competed).
  6. FAR 36.606(b) places the proposal request (i.e. price proposal) in the "negotiation" phase (i.e. after determination of the most qualified firm). Though FAR 36.606(b) uses the term "ordinarily," so it appears to be far from mandatory. That being said, I'm not sure how many A-E firms have bench contracts, but you'll be pissing off the bulk of them by having to expend unnecessary efforts and cost to prepare pricing proposals that will never see the light of day. Expect those costs to creep into indirect rates and your agency will start seeing higher prices.
  7. Definitized or Undefinitized Task Order?

    What does the contract say about ordering procedures? It doesn't sound like the contractor submitted a proposal--are the unit prices listed by job or by labor rate? An NTE doesn't sound very firm as far as firm fixed price orders go.
  8. FAR 46.705 Warranties

    I don't have background to point you to. But at a basic level, the Government assumes the cost risk in a cost-reimbursable contract. So if an issue arises that would have given rise to a warranty claim under a FFP contract, the Government would be paying for the work under a CPFF contract.
  9. Fee Realignment

    Focus on the contract at this point, rather than the negotiation. And like others have said, we don't know what's in your contract.
  10. If it's sole source, then their justification for adjusting your hours to put you on equal footing with other bidders makes little sense. Agreed with Joel--you're in a much better position in a sole source environment to negotiate and reach a clear meeting of the minds. Discuss your concerns with the Government, and figure out their concerns. Then resolve them in the contract document.
  11. You still need to pay it. The IFF is incorporated into your schedule pricing. It's not something to be added after the fact.
  12. This bears repeating. More often than you think, Government program management won't be expecting an invoice for higher than the laptop's sticker price. Be prepared to fight them on this, because procuring material has additional costs associated with it, and if you only bill the laptop sticker price, then you're losing money. And I don't know if your contract type allows profit on materials. This whole deal can be a slippery slope. You might buy the laptop now, and then the program team decides it's a lot easier and quicker to have you buy their equipment rather than their contracts office. That's not a good position to find yourself in, and it's made significantly worse if you're losing money on every purchase. I suppose an extra benefit to billing actual costs is the Gov't might be less inclined to come back for more due to sticker shock (not always the case).
  13. government recovery

    I had a Government customer years ago that would consistently insist that they did not want, and would not pay for a warranty. OK, fine with us. But once something happened with the equipment, they (rightly or wrongly) claimed it was a latent defect.
  14. Tracking LOE in FFP subcontracts

    All fair points. And with that, I'm now more confused at what the OP is concerned with "losing." Though the chances of an overzealous COR are high, at which point it's hard to apply the rules when the "rules" are all in one person's head.
  15. Tracking LOE in FFP subcontracts

    I suppose that's a question for the OP. Was the subcontract price included included in the overall estimated cost? Was the estimated cost tied exclusively to an LOE?
  16. Tracking LOE in FFP subcontracts

    It depends on whether you're a shareholder or an employee. Shareholders (and mid/upper management) will want to see maximum profit and will be quite pleased with your example. Employees (and lower management assigning them to tasks) will want to maintain as many hours as possible for their own staff to keep them working on Government funds. In OP's case, I'm not sure where the extra funding is coming from for the FFP subcontract if he doesn't want to tie it to the LOE (assuming the estimated cost is tied to the LOE).
  17. Thanks very much for the cite, Vern. This has been informative--I've printed out the full article for some light reading later on.
  18. How much should Whynot be concerned with the covenant against contingent fees? I'm not well-versed on the exceptions but flags go up when I read about arrangements like this.
  19. DPAS

    Sounds like the logical solution would be to get the Prime to pay the sub in accordance with the subcontract terms.
  20. What does the solicitation text say regarding changes in Key Personnel? Here's another recent GAO protest (YWCA of Greater Los Angeles), dealing more with agency action after notification, but I feel to be relevant: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686617.pdf
  21. Ha, I don't think that argument applies to my current scenario. But I'm absolutely guilty of making it when the need arises (and with equal success on my end).
  22. IDIQ Decision

    Please don't use facts and citations to prevent my decent into disgruntled oldmanhood.
  23. IDIQ Decision

    Purely anecdotal, but it's been years since I saw a true UCA. Large contractors I've worked with tend to shy away from them and have established rather strict internal approval requirements. I imagine it's tough for a CO to put one in place for similar reasons. Both sides of the table seem to think that a UCA is a huge advantage for the other party--Gov't sees it as a license for the contractor to run costs up and contractors see it as a license for the Gov't to kill their profit on the backend. Since these stricter internal requirements have been put in place, I don't see UCAs. I instead see lots of ATPs, NTPs, Letter Contracts, At-risk-orders, etc. Basically come up with anything you want. Just don't call it a "UCA" because that has to get signed off up top.
  24. IDIQ Decision

    You won't be able to compel the Government to make award. It's curious that they went through negotiations with you (did you agree to a price?) and then decided against it. But it's far from unheard of, especially in the last two weeks of September.