Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

Members
  • Content Count

    286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,110 profile views
  1. A subcontractor's size determination is established at the time it certifies in writing that it is a small business for the subcontract work/NAICS code proposed. See 13CFR 121.404(e) as follows: (e) For subcontracting purposes, a concern must qualify as small as of the date that it certifies that it is small for the subcontract. The applicable size standard is that which is set forth in § 121.410 and which is in effect at the time the concern self-certifies that it is small for the subcontract. It is not clear that this was accomplished at that time since you refer to a small business subcontractor proposal, not a certification.
  2. That clause must be one applicable and included in a solicitation/contract regarding the end item delivery of the door. The case I referenced above is cited as authority that "assembly" cost is considered "manufacturing" cost when assembly completes the article in the form required for use by the government.
  3. does this help you? https://www.gao.gov/assets/510/501296.pdf
  4. I don't think Government accountability record keeping has anything to do with determining whether an item is GFP or not. Of course there should be Government record keeping of GFP and non-GFP property that is owned/accountable by/to the government. Rocco, I did not see where you pointed to anything specific in the DOD Instruction that determines when an item is GFP or not. Also, you alleged that DFARS 245.107 makes the wing in this case (not shipped to or in possession of the contractor), GFP. You did not point to anything in DFARS 245.107 that sustains your conclusion. Therefore, Sunstrider, based on the information in this thread, I agree with you that the wing is not GFP.
  5. Joel, it sounds like you are saying that the characterization of the property is GFP whether the property remains on an AFB and is made available to a contractor to work on vs. the government physically ships it to the contractor plant in Oshkosh?
  6. Hi 88rocco. Having difficulty determining how you got this conclusion from DFARS 245.107. Could you please elaborate/quote in detail the supporting language in DFARS 245.107 that led you to the above quoted conclusion?
  7. what does "initiates Clauses to a Contract" mean? Does this process include all or only some of the clauses included in the contract? Can you provide some examples of clauses "initiated" by the engineer? Is the subject matter of those clauses technical engineering world clauses? If you do not work for the U.S. government, what, if anything, does your employer's processes and procedures state about who is authorized to negotiate contracts and issue changes? Does it make sense that you and the engineer should collaborate with respect to change or removal of such clauses?
  8. Is a partnership or a joint venture contemplated? To avoid confusion, you should refrain from using the word "partner" when referring members of a joint venture, if you mean joint venture. Have you considered a partnership, or a joint venture or a teaming agreement and determined that a joint venture is the way you want to go? I don't know whether the bidder must be an 8(a) firm in order to bid on an 8(a) contract, but it sounds like it could help. If so, company 3 may conceivably be the prime and company 2 the subcontractor in a teaming agreement. Company 2 GSA schedule could be included in the prime proposal by company 3.
  9. What is the poor performance by the prime??? Did the prime have an end item schedule delivery issues with the Government directly attributed to something the prime did or did not do? Specifically, what? Is there some contract that requires the prime to exercise some option with this particular subcontractor? Is it the Government that did not exercise an option with the prime? Is the subcontractor late on performing/delivering to the prime contractor per its contract requirements? What does that have to do with the prime contractor?
  10. general_ , there seem to be a lot of details to understand about the transaction and your company systems and business risks to form potential solutions. You seem to be on to some concepts yourself. Suggest you engage an off-line expert in contracts to assist. I don't believe this forum is appropriate to take further, but I could be wrong.
  11. You indicate that all work has not ended. Inventory and disposition of property is "work." Therefore , your system should not permit "closing on the books" of any purchase order where your records indicate (hopefully yours do) that company or Government property is in a supplier's possession. If the property is the prime's property, any such lack of controls is harming its shareholders, who could bring a derivative lawsuit for wasting resources, and it could affect bottom line profits in re-procuring the same property for use in support of another prime. If the property is Government property, there could be serious harm to the company's ability to obtain more work from the Government, especially if the Government audits the property system. You may have monetary liability to the Government for its value. It sounds like you have a system control deficiency. Your company should launch an internal review of all prime contracts to determine the extent to which there still may be Government property in the possession of a supplier under any prime contract, act accordingly to resolve it, and ensure that the property/accounts payable/supplier management systems interact with one another in such a way as to prevent a reocurrance. You may wish to re-open the purchase order "on the books." You might consider issuing a change notice to delete inventory and disposition of all government and prime property and negotiate a credit change notice that includes the cost of the prime performing this work. Instruct the supplier to ship all property to you. The prime work seems like it could be reimbursed by the Government at least to the extent of the eventual credit change notice value. You may need to set up a separate charge number for this work. Any property not accounted for consistent with your company's records, should be valued in the change notice negotiation as well. Alternatively, you may explore whether you have the right/and or makes business sense to offset the eventual value of the credit change against money your company owes this supplier under other purchase orders.
  12. Retreadfed, Are you disagreeing with my view about sentence grammar? I don't understand what the disagreement is and its connection to your response. I didn't say anything about whether a contractor is required or not required to comply with the terms of their contract.
  13. VipinOwl, throughout this posting, I have not been quite sure of your understanding about what party is required to comply with a particular FAR /FAR Supplement. For example, if a regulation states throughout it "contracting officer shall...," that regulation is not worded as applying to contractors. Vice versa is also true. I have met many contractor and government professionals that did not know or understanding the difference. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) is one of those confusing areas. If your focus is adequate price competition regarding a prime contractor's subcontract, has it been your understanding that FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) applies to the transaction, and also applies to a government awarded contract? Just checking with you.
  14. VipinOwl, my view is from the eyes of a prime contractor awarding a CPFF subcontract. Many commentators on this site seem to be from the government side. I am not. I do not know enough about government practices or interpretations of applicable regulations. So, I have nothing to comment on with respect to your first paragraph, which questions award of CPFF primes. As to your 2nd paragraph, you mention "fair and reasonable price" and "cost or price determination standards." I am unable to compare industry to government because I do not have enough information. However, I can say that it would not be unusual for the government to question the adequacy of a prime contractor's subcontract transaction conclusion that a price was fair and reasonable. You also asked whether "adequate price competition suffice in the case of a CPFF subcontract award." I do no know how the government might view this. I have already expressed my prime contractor side business practice view on this---no.
  15. You may take a look at the below and see if it helps you. While the FAR cited therein controls the government actions, regarding full and open competition, nothing prevents contractors from borrowing FAR provisions to establish similar contractor policies and processes. https://www.ncmahq.org/docs/default-source/magazine-articles-(top-stories)/march-2019/turley.pdf?sfvrsn=6c45022b_2 Sounds like your situation is about staying with the existing IT firm. Every situation is unique in its justification. Talk to the technical people and ask them to provide specific rationale and a cost estimate for each rationale that supports why changing sources would cost you and the government more money, schedule delays, etc. If you can't come up with adequate justification, bid it out. There may be a good chance that the incumbent would be the best value anyhow since they possess unique knowledge and experience.
×
×
  • Create New...