general_correspondence

Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About general_correspondence

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,617 profile views
  1. Won't know until ( or if ) the attorney do research into the service providers history of leaving the switch on, or cutting the switch off. My bet is the service provider cuts the switch off on individual accounts, ( ordinary people and small business ) When that can be proven, the question will be why did the service provider allow the services to continue if they have a track record of cutting them off for other than US Government customers. The other question I have ( not sure if discussed ) is how much money are we talking about and how many end users of these phones? I thought I read invoices ran almost 2 months before someone noticed, but are we talking a couple dozen phones, couple hundred phones, or couple thousand phones? relevant question ( if not answered already ) about if this is much to do about nothing and settling this. The size and scope (in my mind) also matters in how easy it would be for end users to walk into Verizon or AT&T - keep their same phone number - and switch over to another carrier. The government would be demonstrating its distaste for the current provider and doing what they would have done if alerted their service would be cut off. Its also my strong sense, the providers T&C's were incorporated or signed up by the USG. Which means provider could legally leave the switch on if not notified ahead of time to cancel. Automatic renewals, I hate them.
  2. MMP514, If contract expiration was explicitly marked, ask your legal team why it is not unjust enrichment? These service providers leave the switch on because they know government CO's ( like yourself) will have a dilemma, typically resulting in their favor. My opinion, It broke ethics and breached contract if payment is made for these services.
  3. Extending a fixed-term contract If you don’t see anything about extensions in the original contract, or if the information is unclear, ask the wireless provider to explain before you sign. Extensions start automatically once your original contract expires. They will take place on a month-to-month basis. No new contract needs to be signed. The terms and conditions remain the same. If you do not want the contract extended, or do not want further extensions to happen, we recommend you cancel the original contract by giving written notice to the wireless provider 30 days before it expires. Cancelling a fixed-term contract You can cancel a fixed-term contract with a wireless provider when they do not clearly disclose information. If you do this within 1 year, you are entitled to a full refund. But you must return any free or discounted items given to you under the contract if the wireless provider asks.
  4. What did the contract say about the period of performance, and cut off services? Why do you think you need to do either?
  5. Old Guard, ji20874's advice is best advice, which is clearly outline all assumptions to your proposal. Who cares if a contractor sent out the RFP, a thorough job by a proposal manager will usually if not always have assumptions, and just because this RFP is worse than others shouldn't change your approach. The government outsourced the issuance of the RFP, and the company is outsourcing the response to RFP, your job in all this cross communication is to make it clear the "price' is based on these assumptions.
  6. govtacct02 Did the subcontract state their would be releases' or PO's against the agreement? I would think if the PO added additional funding to the overall subcontract value, and the money and period of performance was executed at the PO level, the latest document governs both the value and period of performance, but I can't say for certain without seeing the contract.
  7. I was on a prime contract, working for the prime, we had retired Lt. Colonels working as trainers. The ARMY and my company worked side by side, shared many duties, but of course, the ARMY was the customer. The ARMY required to standardize due to the myriad of ways our trainers chose to represent them self, for example, " retired Lt. Colonel 89th airborne, etc.." Why don't you comply with your primes request but standardize the emails with name, title, prime company name, and the word....(Contractor) in parenthesis. I would like to hear the argument your prime puts forth if they believe that to be unreasonable. This way, anyone receiving emails have an accurate, and factual representation of the sender of the email. When questions arise as to "who this contractor may be"....well, so be it.
  8. We are a prime contractor. Sorry for the interchangeable use of words. We are a prime, issuing RFP's for subcontracts.
  9. Old Dog it's a letter contract that apparently says it will require a break down on certain cost elements, and accounting system questions, before the drafter of this agreement agrees to the fixed price.
  10. SpecialisIT I agree with H2H, that it depends, so choose an outside CPA firm with past experience developing accounting systems aligned with Federal government expectations and systems. There are many out there.
  11. Our program wants to issue RFP to sole vendor, when an RFP was previously sent to multiple vendors who we have awards with. The previous RFP was issued 4 to 6 months ago, and we have a couple suppliers under award for same service. The intent is to obtain additional suppliers and pricing. Our policy is any non competitive procurement shall be documented on our non competitive justification Form and put in the PO file. Question is, ...is this a non competitive procurement, and if YES, can the justification be based on that the basis it is only sent to one supplier is so we can get comprehensive pricing from multiple vendors?
  12. Navy, your recommendation to enter into discussions could apply by including or excluding the PP from a once upon a time Sub. I would verify the POP, value, close-out and other factors to establish the PP write up by the subcontractor. Further research to determine merits to the write up and conclusions should be included in PP rating if all can pass the sniff test. I see no reason to exclude if the once upon a time relationship existed and had a happy ending.
  13. here's another fact. The government is more in control over our Subcontractor than we are, we allow it, they assert it, and we live with it because they pay the Bills. They (U.S. government) are increasing the staffing again, and I have been told a MOD is on the way to the prime's HQ back in the States. This will be two (2) MODS to a subcontract within two months, that will increased the purchase order to them by a million dollars. (450K 1st mod, 550K, 2nd mod) The prime contract was not modified for this action on the first staffing increase 2 months ago. It would seem from what I am being told, this current staff increase to the subcontract, will be a MOD to the Prime contract. is this in scope work? That question may not be as relevant any longer .....so due to the short time between subcontractor PO modifications, and if the prime does in fact get modified here shortly as I am being told it is...., would certified cost price data be required of subcontractor, when the 2nd subcontract modification is executed- if no exemption existed?
  14. I think it is simply saying they are going to rank a large contract of a JV partner, higher than 3 little ones. They consider that "more complex" than having small stand alone contracts. I frankly could argue the opposite - having several smaller contracts that are performed under substantially different scopes of work, different price schedules, billing, accounting, administration, etc..and performing well, would have high merit also. "volume" does not always define "complexity"
  15. Tax obligation language in a contractors employee agreements are somewhat frightening so much so real fears of detainment or imprisonment could ocurr to a contractor in a host nation. Is this legal, or ethical for govenment to allow, if they knew? Its possible under a FFP labor CLIN, the contractor bid in a manner where any new hires on the program would be required to be responsible for host nation taxes, but the government may not necessarily know this, and if the government was aware, it seems they (U.S. Govt.) may be the target of the host nation government to come after if the host nation believes the contractor did not remit all taxes they believed were due to them. Working in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, is tough enough, but if a contractor requires their employees to be liable for some unknown amounts and sums of money, with no regulatory to it, shouldn't the government be aware, and not allow that?