Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

Members
  • Content Count

    597
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Providing comments and references for educational purposes. No legal advice is given or intended.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,181 profile views
  1. General capital type equipment like laptops do not seen specialized enough for any recoupment of costs. If it was something like a supercomputer like Cray, maybe that would be different, and should have been proposed. I would not change what I said about risks and are even more concerned since you plan on executing work with GFE known to you to be lackluster in nature.
  2. My vantage point and experience is from the contractor side. The right concerns and risks are highly dependent upon technical knowledge of the written statement of work and specifications included in the BPA Call document and how development is affected by substitution hardware. Risk of agreeing to substitute your company equipment for GFE without knowing that software development can still be successful on this substitute equipment may include the government eventually defaulting your company, being sued by the government, may result in a poor performance rating that negatively impacts receiv
  3. I assume the interest is academic. If you wish to try mandating only labor union member workers in a solicitation/contract requirement, suggest you contact the agency attorney. This labor relations topic is controversial, political and changeable. See, President Bush's Executive Order 13202 ("anti" FAR 22.5 Project Labor Agreements) at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-2001-02-26/pdf/WCPD-2001-02-26-Pg309.pdf . And, President Obama's Executive Order 13502, which replaced 13202 ("pro"-Project Labor Agreements) at http://thetruthaboutplas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/signed-executive-or
  4. Interesting topic. I am not aware of a FAR citation regarding your question. I don't know where you are going with this. In my experience, the contract terms and conditions (mandatory flowdowns and business flowdowns) between the prime and the agency ("subcontractor") was usually one sore point. The other was the agency ("subcontractor") insistence that it was selling work and the prime needed to sign ITS sales contract terms without exception. Over several occasions, those two issues were insurmountable in the time frame needed, if it were even possible at all. It turned out the most successf
  5. A GSA template includes the following language: o For an Individual subcontracting plan,list the total dollars (small and large/OTSB) estimated for subcontracting under the specific contract, including all option periods broken out separately for each period plus a summary of all periods for the total contract term; There are several Subcontracting Plan experts on this site. Lets just wait until they weight in. The template and the FAR clause use "total dollars" and the RFP uses "contract value." Not sure there is a real difference in practice. Also the option area seems li
  6. here is a definition in FAR 219-9 total contract dollars means the final anticipated dollar value, including the dollar value of all options.
  7. The total contract amount including cost and profit or fee. If there were options, I would not include that amount until after it was exercised. That is my take. What is yours and why?
  8. My response was relative to a prime action with potential subcontractors, since the poster advises subcontractors. For business risk reasons and internal costs, prime contractors may choose to verify that the subcontractor has an adequate accounting system before award and look to the eighteen criteria in DFARS 252.242-7006 for the standard. That would be especially applicable if that DFARS clause was included in the prime. Not saying that the DFARS clause would be flowed to the subcontractor. But, when DCAA or an outside audit was available and based on 1408, is was accepted.
  9. My experience and practice with major prime contractors relative to this area is as follows: 1. A FAR 52.216-7 subcontract award would never have be made if based solely on an external audit of their indirects. That part of your post is a surprise to me. To justify award, we would first look for DCAA approval of an acceptable accounting system. Failing that, an external audit opinion that the accounting system is acceptable, which would undergo various checks and discussions with the auditor to determine whether it should be relied upon. Failing that, we would propose sending company acc
  10. If FAR 52.245-1 was included in the contract, I don't see how the contractor is liable for "laptop is stolen or damaged through no fault of the Defense Contractor," as you say in the facts, unless liable through one of the listed exceptions in (h). Vern has suggested a practical solution which would save both parties the trouble of investigating (1) whether it matters if the laptop was formally added to the contract as GFP (2) the impact of the "Pass" (3) contractor's insurance (4) contractor good faith (5) contractor property management practices. That solution should require a change notice
  11. I will try to address answering your question better than I did before. The question is not that simple. It depends. If you are searching for some FAR or internal Government rules about exercising an option and funding in your stated situation, I am not an expert, but I would be surprised there were FAR guidance along those lines. I do consider myself well versed about how contractors may view contract language. A cost reimbursement contract should include a definitized estimated cost for work other than the option. The CLIN option for additional work (i.e., incurring travel expenses, as you s
  12. By the way, "fair and reasonable" is not the usual FAR standard for reimbursement under a cost type contracts. The usual standard is "allowable", see FAR 52.216-7 which would normally be included in such a contract. Per FAR 31.201, "allowable" can mean reasonable and allocable. Did your contract include a "fair and reasonable" standard instead? Just to correct the record, I did not make the above statement "...Of Course that is as long as those travel costs are determined to be fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer." That was a misprint. The above statement was made by the poster
  13. From a contractor viewpoint, it sounds like this CLIN is being used to contractually say something like "ok, now you can travel." In any event, if I were the contractor, I would not travel unless there was already contract funding that did not specifically restrict its use for travel and this funding was not already budgeted by contractor for something else. If the current contract funding was contractually restricted for travel, I would not travel until there was funding for travel. The CLIN appears to me to be contractually too vague to be clearly understood.
×
×
  • Create New...