huwen119

3 hours ago, here_2_help said:

Basing workshare on revenue instead of hours was a big mistake. Just my point of view.

Agreed, not sure what capture team negotiated with sub but this was not a well positioned effort to go after.

A general comment, we want to be a good prime who honor workshare to subs who help us win, but I always find hard to finanlize in writing especially when capture team has made some promises to subs...

thanks here 2 help.

Joel and Vern - thanks for reviewing this post. Below is the additional information, hope it clarifies my question.

"What is a TA? (Teaming Agreement between Prime and Sub)

NDA = non-disclosure agreement? Between which parties? (yes, NDA is between Prime and Sub)

Who are you "exclusive" with?  Is "we" you and this specific sub? (yes, Sub is willing to enter into an exclusive TA with Prime (my firm) and not team with other companies for this effort.)

What "final number" or other specific price proposal "info" is the sub insisting upon having access to?  Details or overall bottom line? (the overall total price that we propose to the Govt and with each year broken out); Why are they insisting upon having access to this information? (workshare is based on % of revenue for each party. I think this is why they insist on getting this info and teaming with my firm)"

I think if this becomes a showstopper for entering into a TA, we (Prime) have to make a business decision on whether we need this sub or not.  Your suggestions are much appreciated! 

Thank you. 

I am working on a TA with a sub (we are exclusive). We have an NDA executed and this is a FFP task order contract. Due to propriety info contained in the price proposal and competitiveness of the program, I rejected their request to obtain Prime's (us) price proposal info (the final number we submit to the Govt) in the TA. During the negotiation, I provided a link to the sub so that they can check contract value after the award. However, it seems this is a deal breaker and they insisted having access to this info, with that said, any alternative approach or language that I can use in the TA to bring them on the team (they are crucial for this win)? 

Thank you! 

Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions and advice. The CO provided some great guidance and has confirmed that the effective date should be backdated to the task order award date. As Navy said, the law requires it so we ought to comply with the correct document. Thanks again.

Thanks both. I understand there is a 30 day reviewing period when receiving a new WD for any increase claimed. However, I am still hoping to get a clear understanding from the CO of when the correct WD should apply to this contract so we can learn the lesson and move forward. I think I am really stuck on the effective date here.      

Scenario: An IDIQ/Task Order contract with one base + four one option years. The FFP task order was awarded on 1 October 2015 subject to SCA with WD documentation included.  On 31 March 2016 CO issued a modification to include a correct WD because the original one was wrong. After review, we concluded the rates remain the same but the H/W went up 20 cents according to the correct WD. We have one subcontractor under this task order working on a FFP basis. My questions are:

(1) when should the correct WD apply to this TO contract? The original award date or the beginning of the option year or the modification effective date? IAW FAR 52.222-43 (c) Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards -Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), the current Wage Determination should apply on the anniversary date of a multiple year contract or the beginning of each renewal option period. But the CO issued a modification during the base year to correct an error. How should I best interpret this clause under this circumstance?

(2) I have asked the CO for guidance. Are there any corrective actions that I should take while waiting for the reply from the CO?

(3) Should I modify subcontract to include correct WD before getting everything sorted with the government including getting price adjustment if any?

Thanks.

Thanks for your kind comments and help.

There are personnel requirements on the SOW (by LCAT) that we shall furnish those personnel when PoP starts. That said, we did not honor what we promised. As Joel/Ji mentioned, that is probably why KO is not happy about performance quality and contractor compliance no matter what the circumstances are.

Due to slow security clearance processes, contractors are indeed facing a great deal of risks. To better perform/fulfill construal requirements, as Ji20874 suggested, adding a blurb to our quote might be something we should consider especially for some LCATs who need Top Secret clearance.

Retreadfed, sorry I am afraid I cannot share much information as I am still learning/observing what government expects us to do. As of today, we are still working with KO and hopefully we can reach some common understanding and moving forward. Thanks again.

Vern - yes, according to SOW, all required personnel must be on site when PoP starts and our price quote/proposal (with LCATs and estimated hours) was incorporated in the contract by reference.

However, as mentioned before, the contract was awarded on Friday and PoP starts on following Monday. All required personnel must have top secret clearance.

Michael - i would suggest using current rates for proposal because those rates are in your contract and are binding. Once PoP starts and provided that your new rates are approved, you can file a REA to justify your new rates.

Retreadfed – Good point. Either way government could hold us accountable even if we made our deliverables on time due to insufficient staffing level.

Joel -In terms of Monthly Report, we are required to provide a summary of work performed, issues, future operations. However, something really confuses me is that this is FFP with only one labor CLIN (no SLINs). Govt still requires us to record burn rate for each LCAT on Monthly Report. In addition to Monthly Report, a couple of other reports include SOPs and some meeting briefings and documents.

The services provided to the government are on a recurring basis at established prices.

In terms of payment schedule, all it says on the contract is “The Government shall pay the Contractor as full compensation for all work required, performed and accepted under this contract, inclusive of all costs and expenses, the firm-fixed price stated in this contract.”

Having said that, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place...

Considering this is a delivery order from GSA, all terms and conditions from our schedule will govern this TO. Even though I don’t believe contract terms self-deletion rule, in this case, I am assuming 52.212-4 (Alternate I) doesn't apply.

Thanks, all.

As mentioned in contract facts, this particular contract was awarded under GSA schedule. It is a delivery order so terms and conditions are quite simple and invoicing/payment instructions are also very succinct. For example, the contract does not say how payment will be made, either upon completion of work or meet certain line item.

However, I checked terms and conditions on my GSA schedule, 52. 212-4 and 52.212-4 (Alternate I) and 52.233-1 are all included. That said, as you all mentioned, contractor must continue performance even if without payment/pending final resolution.

Metteeec - thanks for mentioning excusable delay. I understand it is contractor’s obligation to notify our customer per 52.212-4(f) excusable delay because getting TSC in 1 day for all personnel including subs is impossible and customer should understand this fact. We have been doing that and will continue to do if there are any other delays.

If continuous engagement with the government does not work, we will have to seek REA/Claim but in the meantime, paying subs becomes a real struggle. How should we deal with that? Any suggestions?

All,

I ran into a problem on payment/invoicing. Please find below contract facts:

(1) Service contract awarded under GSA MAS as FFP type (small contract <$1M/year), 1 base year plus 4 option years, currently on base year.

(2) No labor hours specified on the contract; deliverables are straight forward: a monthly status report and a couple of other reports.

(3) Invoices shall be submitted per FAR252.212-4(g)

(4) The PoP starts one day after the contract was awarded; contract requires all personnel be available when PoP Start.

Due to security requirements, it is impossible to staff all personnel when PoP starts, but my firm staffed all personnel in a month and during this time, all deliverables have been made and all reports have been turned in on time.

The problem: Our invoices have been rejected by KO due to insufficient staffing.

My questions are:

(1) this is a FFP type contract. Should the payment be in lump-sum as long as all deliverables are met?

(2) If the government refuses to pay, do we (contractor) have right to suspend our operation/on-site personnel?

(3) Any other options can we take? Such as file a claim or REA?

Thanks very much!