Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California/Nationwide
  • Interests
    World and U.S. travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,632 profile views
  1. For some details about one company's view of the practical aspects of the Assad "TINA Sweep" policy memo see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgAiP99x3Dg
  2. 1. It sounds like the program office may have induced, requested or approved the matter. 2. What is the total cost for the service? It may not be worth a CO's pay scale to spend much time with this. If you think it is fraud, ask for a DCAA audit. 3. It is not clear to me that the contractor is permitted to purchase under AF BPA's. 4. It sounds like it could have been an emergency while the test was in progress. Stopping the test support to obtain bids for cell service and/or research and obtain permission to use the AF BPA may not have supported the test or your program office.
  3. Perhaps you can provide additional info. Does "customer" mean contractor. Are you a Government employee. Did the "customer" state they were going to bill the ODC CLIN? Did you ask the customer to provide its company financial system definition of ODC? What type contract is it...FFP, cost type, etc. What is the dollar value involved? Is it true about AFNET Wifi inability? Do you agree that the sites are needed to perform the test? What, if anything does the contract state about the test?
  4. ARF, you may wish to focus instead on subcontractor and prime warranty cost itself, which I am guessing may be more money than profit on subcontractor's warranty costs. Will the government contract include a warranty provision? Does the prime's financial accounting system already include warranty for the end item? If so, the prime could be asked whether it is including warranty requirements in purchase solicitations and to delete such a requirement and all associated separate charges by subcontractors for that.
  5. Most reasonable course of action is to ask whether there is a problem, whether your company contributed in any way to the delay and the estimated determination date. If you don't wish to do that or the response is not reasonable, you may argue that it is a constructive change and formally file a claim for an equitable adjustment.
  6. Can a CO add a FAR clause to a GSA schedule task order award that was not in the RFQ, nor part of the GSA schedule contract itself? If not, what recourse does the apparent successful vendor have if it believes the addition of the clause adds substantial costs? (bolded language added) Was this a competitive situation? If so, adding a requirement (that adds or subtracts value) to an award that was not included in the government solicitation for the award, could be challenged as unfair to the other bidders.
  7. Neil Roberts

    Fee on Negotiated Changes

    There is some Government precedence for thinking about what to do with fee weighted guideline analysis when there may be actuals. See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-21/pdf/2016-25332.pdf. This case is still pending a final report.
  8. Neil Roberts

    Fee on Negotiated Changes

    I would argue that (1) the proposed fee was offered at a time when little or no actual costs could have been known, and in fact, were not known (2) although the work is complete, you do not know the actual cost of the work because you didn't actually collect or record costs that were only incurred against that change (of course this has to be true). Therefore proposed fee on proposed costs are still reasonable.
  9. I wouldn't agree to paragraph a. It flies in the face of cost reimbursement allowable costs per FAR 52.216-7. Not sure why you are having a problem with paragraphs b. and c., as they seem consistent with FAR 52.216-7, which I would expect be flowed to your firm with alterations of the parties such that you the subcontractor shall comply with submitting rates to the Government for its determination. I would verify the exact prime contract wording of paragraph a. Pay close attention to analyzing the wording, including any language that substitutes parties, whether the wording makes it a mandatory flowdown or whether it applied only to the prime contractor. Even if it clearly applied to a subcontractor with the given rates, it seems to be over reaching by the Government. You may wish to complain to your representatives in Congress and or the Small Business Office or decide whether to walk away from the work or accept the business risk.
  10. Neil Roberts

    Defective Pricing

    Potential actions by the U.S. Government includes civil and/or criminal penalties under the False Claims Act and suspension or debarment of the contractor. State civil and criminal laws may also be applicable. Shareholders of corporations may initiate court actions against the corporation.
  11. Neil Roberts

    Charging with Coverage

    It would be helpful to know in each case how the direct and indirect labor was bid on the government contract, whether the contractor is subject to Cost Accounting Standards, whether the contractor has submitted a Disclosure Statement and whether it was reviewed by DCAA. Offhand, from the way your post is written, I would suspect the practice you describe is questionable.
  12. Neil Roberts

    Limitation of funds notice requirements

    My interpretation of the clause language is the same. However, does the contract specify funding by CLIN? Also, your post seems to be worded as if you are concerned with line items, not total funding under the contract. It is also not clear what "we had some CLIN's go cost in excess" means or is relevant. Does your contract have estimated cost amounts per line item??? I would have expected that you send a notice when costs expected plus actual cost incurred under the contract exceed the total funding allotted to the contract. The clause does not contemplate line item estimated cost or line item funding. Perhaps your actions (talking about CLINs) are confusing the PCO or your contract specifies line item funded amounts.
  13. Neil Roberts

    Updating SAM for Financial Results

    You may also wish to consider FAR 9.406-2 Causes for Debarment (a)(3) and (c) for non updated serious information
  14. Neil Roberts

    Updating SAM for Financial Results

    3.9.3 of the SAM Guide https://www.sam.gov/sam/SAM_Guide/SAM_User_Guide.htm#Yourresponsibilities "You are responsible for updating all of your registration information as it changes… · You must renew and revalidate your registration at least every 12 months from the date you previously registered to maintain an active status in SAM. However, you are strongly urged to revalidate your registration more frequently to ensure that SAM is up-to-date and in sync with changes (such as an address change) that may have been made to your D&B or IRS information. If you do not renew your registration, it will expire. An expired registration will affect your ability to receive contract awards or payments, submit assistance award applications via Grants.gov, or receive certain payments from some Federal Government agencies. Please be aware that some federal contracts or assistance awards may require you to revalidate your registration more frequently than every 12 months. Please review the terms and conditions of your federal award carefully to ensure what is required to be compliant." If you do not re-validate when critical information changes, and the non current information is relied on by another party to their detriment, on a worst case basis, you should be able to dream up some potential liability there, especially financial information.
  15. Sounds like you now have your marching orders to comply with the paragraph in question and all other related requirements. I contemplate those to be FAR 52.219-9, DFARS 252.219-7003 and possibly one or more Navy Marine Corp Acquisition Regulations Supplement (NMCARS) clauses. Your post did not indicate which clauses, if any were included in the solicitation terms. There are some differences between those clauses and the so called socio-economic paragraph in question. For example, the socio-economic paragraph appears to be unique in its reference to HUBZone and NAICS. Also it includes an option “for participation by a prime contractor, joint venture partner, teaming arrangement member, or subcontractor.” Perhaps it means that you may include in your proposed subcontracting plan, targets and goals developed by some of your non-small business subcontractors for their subcontracting. If so, you may wish to obtain such targets and goals from them in their proposals to your company and obtain their permission to use the data to increase your company’s small business plan targets and goals. This would give your company more credit for compliance. See 13 CFR Part 121 and 125 at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-23/html/2016-30874.htm