Acq_4_life

here_2_help, You've done just that, helped me determine the proper corrective action. This WIFCON site has really helped me with many issues that I have encountered. It definitely contains some incredible information that allows me to feel comfortable with my decisions. Thanks again.

here_2_help, I have been reassigned as Contract Specialist to 15 different contracts that were awarded by a former Specialist and found several discrepancies. I am trying to correct the discrepancies to ensure that they do not end up in a protest. In reviewing the contract, I did see that the file was documented to include "adequate system for cost-type contracting only?; however, I did not see a Disclosure Statement. I very much understand your response and I agree. What can I do to clean up the contract?

Yes. Clause 52.216-7 was incorporated by reference. Is it appropriate to categorize direct labor, other direct cost as lump sums in cost-reimbursement contracts? This contract was awarded as a cost-reimbursement contract; however, the use of cost reimbursement contracts is prohibited for the acquisition of commercial items. This contract is for a commercial service. Can the contract be modified to reflect a different contract type?

I am reviewing an invoice submitted by a contractor for a cost reimbursement contract. In submitting the invoice, the contractor submitted a lump sum for direct labor, other direct cost, etc. versus classifying individual labor categories. In reviewing the contract, I noticed that the contract was written the same way, direct labor lump sum, other direct cost lump sum, etc. Is this acceptable for cost reimbursement contracts? And can I reject the invoice and request that the contractor resubmit the invoice to include individual labor categories? Other information: The contractor's proposal was submitted by classifying individual labor categories.

Thanks Carl, This information really helps. I've accessed the GSA website on many occasions; I just didn't read more into the information. Thanks again.

Our agency would like to put a vehicle (BPA) in place for Translation Services to place orders against. In requesting quotations from GSA Schedule Holders, how should the solicitation be structured and formatted? According to FAR Part 8.405-2©, "ordering activity must provide the Request for Quotation (RFQ), which includes the statement of work and evaluation criteria to schedule contractors that offer services that will meet the agency's needs". Does this mean that the solicitation should only contain the statement of work and evaluation criteria? I understand that FAR Parts 14 and 15 do not apply to BPAs or orders placed against FSS contracts, but can any parts of the Uniform Contract Format (Sections A-M) be utilized for structuring the solicitation? This BPA will consist of a base period and three option periods not to exceed $5M. Is it true that BPAs do not contain option periods?

The Acquisitions Department awarded a time-and-material contract for project management support to be performed for a base and two option periods. When billing, the contractor invoiced for the exact time and hours that an employee worked. Is it acceptable for a contractor to bill in different increments, i.e. 5, 8, 12, etc., on a time-and-material contract? Is there language to support this and language to include in the contract that restricts the contractor from billing different increments?

I have a similar question to address that mirrors the question presented under advance payments by Ferdi. What would be the appropriate contract vehicle to use to establish an agreement between the U.S. Government and its U.S. Territory to perform activities that involve both parties to accomplish a public need? MOAs have been used in the past to transfer funds to the U.S. Territory; however, it has been determined that MOAs are not the appropriate vehicle. Recommendations made by a contracting official, suggest that a sole source contract be contemplated in order to allow advance payments to the U.S. Territory without having concerns relating to the Privacy Act. I am not familiar with this type of contract vehicle, so I'm very interested in knowing your thoughts.

I have a similar question to address to this discussion. What would be the appropriate contract vehicle to use to establish an agreement between the U.S. Government and its U.S. Territory to perform activities that involve both parties to accomplish a public need? MOAs have been used in the past to transfer funds to the U.S. Territory; however, it has been determined that MOAs are not the appropriate vehicle. Recommendations made by a contracting official, suggest that a sole source contract would be contemplated in order to allow advance payments to the U.S. Territory without having concerns relating to the Privacy Act. I am not familiar with this type of contract vehicle, so I'm very interested in knowing your thoughts.

The Senior Level Contract Specialist received a requirement from the Program Office for Software Development Services. The Program Office requested that these services be completed within the period of Apr. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31. 2010 at a ceiling amount not to exceed $26M. In reviewing the RFQ package, the Contract Specialist noticed that the Program Office extracted the incumbent's labor descriptions into the PWS to ensure that offerors, from the same GSA Schedule 70, propose the same labor categories and match their labor categories against those described in the PWS. This is definitely impractical for the program office to carry out especially under a competitive acquisition. What can be substituted to ensure that the RFQ remains competitive and non-tailored?

leo1102, Option to Telecommute was not specified in the SOW; however, it was permitted by the C/O at time of award. The RFQ did not specify "Option to Telecommute"; however, the contractor's quote was based on proposed onsite as well as offsite hourly rates. To ensure the contract file is documented, should I modify the SOW and execute a modification to reflect this agreement? The IT Department has permitted remote asses to the contractor. I have contacted our legal department; however, no response. Any advice you may have would be helpful. Thanks.

The Acquisition Department awarded a task order against the Federal Supply Schedule for Program Management Support Services. The period of performance for these services is 9/26/08 - 12/30/10. The contractor is required to perform these services on the government premises. The Contracting Officer also permitted the contractor to perform these services away from the government premises (telecommute); however, there was no written agreement established at time of award nor was there a written statement included in the SOW. Can the task order be modified to include this agreement? And if so, what do I include in the modification?