Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

chaudhryu

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About chaudhryu

  • Rank
    New
  1. Thanks. The mod is essential to the required outcome, and not simply adding more work. But yes, the added work could also be competed on its own. In regards to this - would 13.104 apply, given that FAR 13.000 states that the part applies to procurements "the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold" - and this contract's total value does exceed the SAT ($240K)?
  2. Situation: Agency awarded a 5 year FFP contract for $240K (5 year total). Contract is currently in the first option year ($40K). Agency would now like to add some additional work to the contract. The nature of the additional work is very closely related to the work already being done under the contract (it would not result in a material change of the contract). Cost for the additional work has not yet been determined (agency is in the process of determining the cost parameters for a modification within scope). Furthermore, the RFP included this type of work in it - hence, offerors would reasonably have anticipated a modification of this nature at the time of award. Requirement was competed using SAP. Question: The nature of the work would itself not result in the modification being out of scope - but what are the cost limitations on ensuring the modification remains in scope? Would a modification for more than the micro-purchase threshold need to be either competed or justified with a sole source justification? Some individuals utilize a 'rule of thumb' percentage for cost that can be added in a modification to keep it with in the scope of the contract, but I have found no actual references to back that up. Upon reading the following post, it seems as though the cost limit to ensure the modification remains in scope could be the micro-purchase threshold - but I'm not sure. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1173-change-in-scope-qty-and-delivery-schedule-change/ However, part of the discussion in the post below indicates that as long as the nature of the additional work itself was included in the RFP, the modification for additional work would be with in the scope of the competition (even when adding the corresponding cost for that additional work, regardless of exceeding the micro-purchase threshold): http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=801 I'm aware of the regulation that FAR Part 6 does not apply when using simplified acquisition procedures, but from my understanding of FAR 13.501, a sole source acquisition for a SAP requirement (in this case, a modification for additional work) would still require a sole source justification to be drafted and posted, etc., and I'm having trouble reconciling the guidance from these 2 references. Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.
  3. Thanks. I'm almost positive that the contractor failed to include the certification due to not being aware of it rather than anything. I would not treat it as a claim until and unless the certification is submitted. Is there a particular reference/part that would provide guidance on how to handle a non-claim REA (in detail perhaps similar to that as the FAR provides on claims)?
  4. I'm wanting to treat this as a claim because the agency is disputing the contractor's submitted request for payment. Contractor claims that he had to expend far more hours than anticipated (under a FFP contract) to deliver the final deliverable due to numerous changes he claims the agency informally requested along the way (not in writing), and has submitted an invoice (with justificaiton/documentation) for the correspnding amount (well over the contract price). If this were a request for payment for additions the agency had requested procedurally, then I would treat it is a normal request for equitable adjustment under the Changes clause or 52.212-4©.
  5. I've received an REA for an amount greater than $100K, but it does not have the claim certification verbiage. (Contractor either forgot or is not familiar with FAR guidance on claims and didn't include it.) Should I ask the contractor to include the appropriate verbiage so it fully meets a claim definition and can be properly treated as one? With the exception of the certification not being included, the REA meets all other requirements of a claim, and I am inclined to treat it as one. Any input would be appreciated!
  6. Thanks very much for the feedback - that's helpful. Due to clarifications and part of the work being awarded to another contractor, some changes resulted in the proposal - so the form that the proposal was submitted in initially was not its final form. The CO didn't physically sign the proposal. The CO did acknowledge having received it via email, though. It seems as though the strongest argument would be that based on the communication/information contained within the vendor Q&A and the contractor's responses to the agency clarification questions, the agency had reason to conclude that the contractor's software would meet the technical compatibility requirements (as in, there is some reason to support that as the agency's interpretation of the contract).
  7. Hello folks - new member here. I have the following situation and am hoping for some feedback from other CO's out there: Background: Agency awarded a contract recently. Certain requirements of the contractor were not stated in the contract itself, but were clearly stated in the responses to questions submitted by vendors (during the solicitation period) as well as in the clarifications conducted between the agency and the winning contractor. (Clarifications occurred after solicitation closed and prior to award.) These requirements concerned technical compatibilities / requirements of software to be utilized by the contractor during contract performance. Situation: Agency and contractor (jointly) have now discovered that the contractor's software does not meet the technical requirements that were stated in the vendor Q&A and the clarifications. My question: How enforceable are requirements that were stated in the vendor Q&A and the clarification materials? Can the agency, in fact, hold the contractor to these terms? Or are there no grounds for this? The contractor is claiming that this information wasn't included in the RFP document itself or in the contract (which it was not) - and that thus, it isn't enforceable. I can sympathize with this point of view. However, the vendor Q&A was released as an amendment to the RFP, and as such, becomes a part of the overall RFP package - by which logic, it seems that the information contained within should be just as enforceable as the RFP. And, the even though the clarifications were not officially a part of the RFP package, the award was made directly as a result of the contractor's responses to the agency's clarification questions. Any input would be most appreciated. I have not yet come upon this situation before.
×
×
  • Create New...