Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

kathilou

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About kathilou

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Thanks, Vern!!! That's what we think, too. Sigh. Better Buying Power, my @$$.
  2. In the email sent by the financial clerk today with the ASN memo, she actually "corrects" the contracting officer in their determination. I absolutely agree that they have the final choice in the type of funds, but reading contract information to determine whether the work is in or out of scope is not their area. What's their technical expertise? Here are some examples from her email: "3. UPOB (deleted): KO- (deleted): (deleted) was supposed to provide a re-determined price to (deleted), additional information was provided to her on 0x/x/20xx, the UPOB was modified by (deleted) on0x/x/20xx nothing from (deleted). Please see enclosure number 4 letter (K & L) of the attached Guidance of Admin of APPNS after the Period of Availability (Tilted "Documentation and Approval of Contracts Changes Resulting in Upwards Obligations Adjustments"), for additional supporting documents from the contracting office." (this one is ours, we asked what a re-determined price was and got no answer) (the following are other KOs) "2. UPOB (deleted): KO- (deleted): The contract reference on the UPOB SOW is for the removal and installing of a fence, no reference of service calls, this is REA with no legal statement." The rest are like this: "4-7. UPOB 1(deleted): KO-(deleted) : Please see enclosure number 4 letter (K & L) of the attached Guidance of Admin of APPNS after the Period of Availability (Tilted "Documentation and Approval of Contracts Changes Resulting in Upwards Obligations Adjustments"), for additional supporting documents from the contracting office.
  3. Again, thank you for this, Vern. It gets deeper...
  4. We should be using prior year funds for this, if they exist, before using current. However, if no prior year funds are available, then we would go to current. My point was that we absolutely need the prior year funds, because we are low in our current controls. To add to this, I received an email today with a memo from 2010 on "Guidance for Administration of Appropriations After the Period of Availability." Apparently, financial management reads this memo to say that they are the final "approvers" and must see all documentation, regardless of whether or not it is procurement sensitive.
  5. Vern, thank you for all those references! That will not add to my popularity, I don't think. Although, as time goes by, I may not care.
  6. Yes, her function is to provide the funding. For us, an upwards obligation is reaching back to amend a prior year funding document for unforeseen conditions (Differing Site Conditions). We now have an "automated" form for upwards obligations, and it gets routed from the contracting officer to legal, a couple of higher up reviewers, and then to the comptroller to release funds. Bona fide need had already been determined and signed off by legal.
  7. Not that we know of. She believes it is in her swim lane all of a sudden to review all documentation pertaining to REAs and Upward Obligations because of the wording in their FM handbook. We do have current year funding available, but don't want to use it for this because it will cut into the funds available for our little installation. This was a definite unforeseen on a roofing job, and it passed all other levels. She basically told the other 1102 in our office that she needed to see if it was "fair and reasonable."
  8. We have a bit of an issue on an upwards obligation package (for unforeseen conditions-$27K) that went up the chain. When it reached the comptroller (all other levels approved), she called and asked for the PNM and the contractor's proposal. We denied her request. We were told, after some more conversations at other various levels, that apparently, the FM manual said the comptroller has to review documentation for REAs; and that "at her GS level, (she) has the authority to review this information without signing an NDA." They seem to have the definitions mixed up for the claim, REA, and UPOB process. Okay, from my perspective (and having worked on claims in the past), the comptroller certainly has the authority to review the documentation for claims...since the funds are released from the treasury and are not part of the contract value AND the settlement agreement has been signed. However, with regard to REAs and UPOBs, since those are part of the contract value (and funds), the comptroller has no authority to review once the contracting officer's determination has been made and legal has reviewed. Has anyone else run into an issue similar to this?
  9. Thank you all for your comments!
  10. Navfac 4330/43--All of them from what I can see. Although the contractor submitted a 10/95 revision, the 10/11 version calculates the same way.
  11. Although I feel like a brain dead fool posting this question, apparently I am a brain dead fool this week. In going over a contractor's proposal, I began to question whether or not a construction (or otherwise) contractor can charge profit against state sales tax. Easy question for all of you, I know. Our 4330 does compute the tax into the total amount the profit is against, but it didn't seem right to me. Would someone please answer this silly simple question for me? Thanks!
  12. Excess Ceiling Available and Options

    Would this apply if the service IDIQ was not actually funded and only has estimated maximum quantities expressed in dollars? Our scenario is that we have a base + 4 option years with estimated funds for each period; funds are naturally not committed/obligated until the task order is cut. The writers of the initial IDIQ did not set a minimum, only a maximum. The base year was underutilized; however, we think we may need more than what was estimated for the first option period. Are we able to add (borrow) the unused maximum amount from a previous period to a subsequent year? Would it be legal to do a mod to decrease the max quantity on the base and move it to the option period where it's needed? If not, can you "borrow" the quantity from subsequent option periods? It's unfortunately too late to discuss the problems with the way the IDIQ was written--we just need to know what we are able to do with the monster we inherited! Thanks for any light that could be shed.
×