Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ohnoudidnt14

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ohnoudidnt14

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,002 profile views
  1. Hello Wifconers and happy 4th of July. A friend and I are considering starting a “what were they thinking” series relating to government contracting. I would love to hear from you on particular instances, scenarios, protests, or court decisions that left you just scratching your head. The field is wide open…these could be matters so egregious as to be criminal (bribery, fraud, kickbacks, debarment) or a bit more subtle like obvious affiliation or conflict-of-interest issues. As much as we would love to be able to shoot-the-breeze with every one of you and just share stories, we are really
  2. Fed Reg Vol 81 No 104, May 31, 2016 finally implemented the “Similarly Situated Entity“ rule of the 2013 NDAA. Specific updates to 13CFR125 change the overall tenor of the Limitations on Subcontracting to a true limit on the amount that can be subcontracted rather than a prime performance requirement. Based on much of the reasoning included in that Fed Reg, the intent was to bring parity to the various programs, including the Limitations on Subcontracting. The Reg however did not change 48 CFR 52.219 and the various FAR clauses -3, -14, -27, -29, and -30 that implement the limitations
  3. All, thanks for the help on this. I hope you can see my frustration whereas, just like the bond premium, the prime contractor pays this up-front, it seems that it's an "allowable" cost, yet we can't invoice for it (other than progress payments over the life of the contract). Is there really no arguement that this is "coinsurance" since it lowers the prime's premium? Joel, the liquidation of the bond premium is an interesting methodology, but my experience with most agencies of-late is to pay the bond premium and separate it out completely from the progress calculation. Also, your comment
  4. ji, thanks for the quick response. I understand what you are saying, but ultimately the contractor/subcontractor agreement identifies that the contractor is going to reimburse the subcontractor for the bond premium just the way the government is to reimburse the contractor...so it is a cost to the prime regardless of who "paid" it. What if this were a contract mod. Are you saying the cost of the increased subcontractor's bond is an unallowable cost even though it is a requirement of the bonding company and ultimately reducing the cost of the prime contractor's bond premium?
  5. FFP construction contract in SC. Competitive IFB, SDVOSB set-aside. Question on behalf of the prime contractor. The government is required to promptly reimburse a contractor the cost of performance and payment bond premiums per FAR 52.232-5(g). Bonding companies generally require prime contractors also obtain bonds from subcontractors for subcontracts over a certain threshold (usually $250k for small-midsize companies). The prime contractor has several instances of where the subcontractor bond premium was reimbursed by the government along with the prime’s own bond premium AND several inst
  6. Just a quick observation...continuing the language from your quote "no longer count the options or orders issued pursuant to the contract, from that point forward, towards its small business goals". Therefore any task orders already issued can be completed with full accounting to the small business status of the company at the time of award. It is only new orders or option (e.g., contract option years) that can no longer count. Some agencies have chosen to ignore the "orders" part and only apply this restriction to "options". Others have found innovative work-arounds (circumventing the int
  7. ISSUE No. 1 – Yes, I think I’m clear on the requirement. I guess at this point I’m just pointing out the inconsistency between the various socio-economic programs for the benefit of the readers of this forum. I’m hoping it’ll be a point of discussion as to WHY the discrepancy??? ISSUE No. 2 – Yes, there are several inherent problems with the 180 (and often more) day acceptance period. Generally, economic adjustment clauses are not included unless a large percentage of the contract price is based on the price of a highly fluctuating precious metal, fuel, etc. Therefore, the result is a highe
  8. For a SDVOSB or 8(a) set-asides, offerors must be so classified as of the date a bid is submitted, regardless of the resulting actual date of award. Do I understand correctly, however, that for HUBZone, WOSB, or EDWOSB set-asides the offeror must also still be so classified on the day of award of the contract (not sure where Total Small Business would fall, but I assume the former)? An increasing number of agencies are performing solicitations for contracts prior to any funding being available. These solicitations require that the offers confirm XXX calendar days for government acceptance,
  9. I think I might throw a wrench into all of this, but in the end, simplify it for all. The Maersk Line decision ultimately concluded that since one small portion of the project was being performed in the US, that FAR Part 19 applied. Buried in the SBA’s rebuttal arguments, they point out that the newly revised regulation states that FAR Part 19 applies "regardless of the place of performance" 13 CFR 125.2(a); 78 Fed. Reg. 61,114 (Oct. 2, 2013)...and the GAO acknowledges it, even though it wasn't necessary to apply in this case. Therefore, in the SBA’s eyes, FAR Part 19 has been modified so th
  10. As a long-time Government contractor for large and small businesses, my experience with Government contracting officers has been mostly positive. I have had a situation for the last couple of years however where I have encountered a very abusive contracting specialist that is relatively new to the government contracting arena. I don’t blame her completely as her contracting officer has left her mostly unsupervised and, when he did provide any guidance, it was usually wrong. That said, she has been continually NOT acting in good faith (although my lawyer, while agreeing, always stops short of
  11. She has seen most of this already, but I will make sure it gets another thorough review. The problem with this one is that there was an initial evaluation, 14 days contractor comments, then it was revised by the contracting officer (adding the UNSAT and not addressing any of the other disputed issues) and finalized by the "level above the contracting officer" without any chance to comment or refute the revisions. Thanks for the tips, I'll pass them on.
  12. She sent a strongly worded letter to the head of the contracting agency, no response yet (chalk it up to the holidays). I suggested to her that the next step is an official request for final ruling from the contracting officer, then a Court of Federal Claims or Board of Contract Appeals filing. Meanwhile, that CPARs with an UNSAT is out there possibly preventing her from getting more work and there'll likely be no recovery of legal fees...which will just about put her SB out of business. Any other ideas?
  13. Just to rekindle this a bit...a colleage of mine (contractor) on the east coast had a CO rate them as "unsatisfactory" in CPARs for failure to satisfy the limitations on subcontracting. The problem is that they DID satisfy the applicable requirement. Worse, it was a construction contract and, like Joel mentioned, the CO had the certified payrolls that demonstrated compliance. Worse still, the CO worked this in a final revision to the CPARs rating, so the contractor didn't even get the opportunity to comment or rebut. Happy New Year (4.5 hrs early, central time zone)
  14. Thanks. To Ji - I don't believe your last sentence is the case. From their perspective, the change makes sense based on geography. To Vern, I have plenty of examples that might be a good basis for my "private talk" with the chief of the contracting office as Ji suggested, but not likely anything that would meet the government's standard of proof. I just know now that what small profit margin I had is going to be eaten up satisfying unnecessary administrative requests. Frustrating, but all part of the game of life.
  15. I am a contractor working on a FFP electrical construction project for the Navy in SE Georgia. The contracting office is planning to change the CO and ACO. I know this is fully within their right, but the CO and ACO they are planning are individuals that I have worked with before. They are abusive, don’t act in good-faith, and would basically be considered “high maintenance”. Do I, as the contractor, have any right to object to the change? Had these individuals been identified in these roles from the beginning, my price may have been different or I may not have bid the project in the firs
×
×
  • Create New...