Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

general_correspondence

Members
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About general_correspondence

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,489 profile views
  1. ji Ramesses was a Pharaoh - and Ramesses said it. 💰👑🗡️
  2. I agree Joel. The Sub had the option fee at X%, when they were required to submit option pricing a year ago. But then we had "ideas" that would upgrade their 'system" and the customer likes our idea. Due to our suggestions that the customer accepted and agreed to fund, the Sub is asking for 35% more Fee than they originally proposed. I like what Neil was writing about, Neil mentioned it a couple times, "there is not government order" that really kicks this action into gear. From the government perspective and what the historical record will show is that the government increased funding
  3. Sorry, one and the same, it increased by 35%, not quite doubled
  4. not accepted yet, but in case you haven't figured this out yet, it's my management that coached the subcontractor to change their fee. This is why I want to protect the subcontractor as well as our company during any audit. read the first paragraph of the document I put in the link . If the subcontractor is increasing fee erratically, not in conformance to its accounting principles, the definition and description of defective pricing is an issue.
  5. Here 2 Help their are 2 issues, agreed, but they are related in that defective pricing is a concern to the prime due to what can be described as erratic Fee proposed. read the last bullet on page 21 of 28 https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/docs/contract_pricing_finance_guide/vol4_ch5.pdf
  6. Neil both clauses 52.215-12, and 52.215-13, are in the Prime, and in the Subcontract. The government is not going to change the SOW. The government is apparently going to accept our recommendations into the SOW, but will not ask nor will they send RFP. The contract action is going to be the option period the government will exercise in next couple weeks, that carries our "recommendations" and cost/price for another XX months. The government intends to give us the money for the option period, but no scope change, and no RFP. The original option period had funding of ~100K. Our recomme
  7. "Be limited to such Modifications" My DoD customer and prime contract has a 2M TINA threshold, so If I understand correctly, then based on the award and MOD amounts I provided a moment ago, CCCP IS NOT Required did I pass the test yet?
  8. I am reading FAR 52.215-10, and if the subcontractor increases their Fee by 35% - with no explanation as of yet, they may be putting themselves and us in a bad situation? thoughts? I intend to fact find and negotiate, I have adequate time before I begin negotiations
  9. I apologize because I know this question has been answered before, but I looked all over WIFCON and cannot find the thread. We are the Prime, we were awarded a task order on our IDIQ, the award was over 20M, the award was competitive, certified cost and pricing data was not required, our award was based on adequate price competition. In our award winning proposal, was a subcontract valued under the TINA threshold. When the subcontract is Modified to a dollar threshold exceeding TINA, will certified cost and pricing data be required from the subcontractor? The subcontract award is sole
  10. Retread, what is it you need me to clarify about my question "does the Fee remains fixed?" It's understood rates, escalation, and other factors effect costs on option years proposed, but if the subcontractor proposed fee the same in base and throughout, that's my question? I've never seen it, and it would have to be rare, to see the Fee on a subcontractors proposal change in the Option years, keep in mind, this is engineering services CPFF, not a construction contract.
  11. In a CPFF with options, will the Fee remain fixed in Option periods ? We are the prime on a DoD contract that has a subcontractor who submitted a base year proposal, and an option year proposal approximately 12 months ago. The contract and subcontract are CPFF. There were some Scope changes from the customer that will require additional labor from our subcontractor, so an ECP came from the customer, and I sent an RFP to the subcontractor with the changes to incorporate into the option period. The subcontractor doubled the Fee in this proposal, with no explanation in the proposal. Just to be
  12. 49.202 Settlement Profit. So the guidelines I was told to follow is a mixed bag of 49.2, and 49.3 language, but I understand - everything I would do must fall within 49.3. To cut to the chase, can the subcontractor ask for Fee? Seems they would be asking for something unallowable, consequential . No? But it's my experience if you don't ask, you don't get, and in federally funded TfC's an adjusted and reasonable settlement can be agreed - doesn't matter what you call it. But the customer in this case will review the subcontractors settlement proposal - I don't believe they will delegat
  13. if anticipated profits are not allowed, why does FAR 49.3 continue and repeatedly imply it could be if adjusted? for example, "The profit or Fee allowance is not imited to the rate contemplated at the time contract was executed. The negotiation of profit or Fee is based on at least the following additional factors (h) the rate of profit contractor would have earned at completion. on a CPFF, is the fixed fee considered anticipated? thanks
×
×
  • Create New...