Jump to content

Neil Roberts

Members
  • Posts

    914
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neil Roberts

  1. @Needforspeed, what your are asking is more of a legal question. I asked the internet something like "52.242-5 contractor never pays subcontractor", and found the following result: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/government-involvement-when-prime-1226148/
  2. @Needforspeed, as you said, it is negotiated. The leverage is at time of negotiation. Net 30 would be normal after receipt of invoice. You could offer 1%10 days, net 30. If you can't negotiate that, find a bank that will agree to advance you $ for your accounts receivable pending payment, and put the interest cost of doing this into your G&A expenses. FAR is not very generous either. FAR 52.242-5, for example, permits payment up to 90 days after the the contractor receives payment from the government.
  3. Perhaps you could clarify and/or provide language examples for a "pay when paid" clause? Is it a FAR clause? Which one(s)? Are you talking commercial items or?? Also, there is at least one prime contract clause that prohibits a prime from being "just a pass through."
  4. @Drew FAR Case 2010-010 includes implementation of competition requirements unique to Phase III awards under the SBIR and STTR Programs. It is still pending. The proposed implementing FAR Regulations did not appear to include any impact on the scope of CPSR's. Proposed rules at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/07/2023-06420/federal-acquisition-regulation-small-business-innovation-research-and-technology-transfer-programs
  5. Your approach is on the money. If I were you, unless you have some real business heartburn over it, I would go along with the government's position that FFP Task Orders are to be included in calculating sales to the government. I assume these are Task Orders you received from a DOD component and that they are under the umbrella of the sole source IDIQ contract you have...and they do not exist as stand alone contracts. When a contract is included in sales estimates, procurements thereunder should also be included in its review universe. I would ask your accounting system to generate a listing of government contract numbers and procurement purchase contract numbers booked against them. Some of the questions you have should be visible and discussed with the government in the prereview questionnaire
  6. I interpret the above language in the CPSR Guide as having nothing to do with subcontracts. It is instead about your contracts with the Government.
  7. The Sept 2021 CPSR Guide states: "A contractor is eligible for a CPSR when sales to the Government are expected to exceed $50 million during the next 12 months (excluding competitively awarded firm-fixed-price contracts awarded with or without an economic price adjustment and sales of commercial items pursuant to FAR part 12). I am a little confused by some of the language in your post when you say "our company has," followed by "competition were met." Do you agree that your company qualifies for a CPSR in the first place? Is that what you are really asking?
  8. Those are good questions. As the contractor, you should ask the Army to issue a contract change that covers the answers to these questions and/or provides contract direction that accomplishes these tasks, such as government furnished classified information.
  9. I think there are other considerations that should come to mind other than is the contract "closed." I hope you would have thought about whether it should be a new procurement considering the value of the item and whether it is a justified mandatory source or there could be (or is it worth) competition. What about the impact on the payment system since the invoice was already submitted? Could it be done just as easily with a new procurement, etc. Maybe you did give these some thought. So, if the agency initially ordered 6 army designed tanks and forgot to order a spare machine gun turret and it cost $100,000, would you just be asking about "reopening" a contract for 6 tanks that were already delivered? Just a comment. No need for you to respond. I do see that you are a new poster.
  10. Agree clarification is needed. Post appears to have alluded to the transaction possibly being a grant. Many FAR regulations common to "contracts" do not apply to grants although they may provide guidance in situations. Agencies have grant rules.
  11. Are you a contracting officer and are these Government grants?
  12. Thanks for clarifying. There are many other contributors on this site that can better respond to your situation regarding appropriate government contract types and source selection/award issues. While waiting, perhaps you can provide exact language in the BAA regarding proposal requirements and whether contract awards were contemplated from BAA responses and the basis for source selection (i.e., price. schedule, technical, etc)...information that would normally be included in a RFP/ITQ solicitation. Dollar value of each award would be helpful.
  13. You should comply with the requirements that control the specific BAA. For example, FAR 35.016. In general, a sole source award does not seem appropriate at all to me for the purpose of a BAA.
  14. What is the written function of the Tech Code office? What is the rationale for its requirement in this case? Are they governed by written procedures? Is their requirement consistent with the written procedure? What executive level management function do they report to? Is that office required to comply some applicable government specifications or regulations or contract provision related to this decision?
  15. , In FAR 52.216-7, a contractor final voucher paragraph (d) comes before government final payment paragraph (h) and appears to be a preconditioned requirement. If final payment has really been made, the contractor only needs to contractually comply with the balance of paragraph (h). So, I guess the government currently did not find the final voucher in its file and would like a copy? Since your company still has its records, why don't you provide the government with a copy.
  16. My understanding is that a Contract Disputes Act proceeding normally may be available after the contractor submits a formal claim seeking a contracting officer's final decision and the contracting officer issues such a final decision. Scratching my head about the contractor's claim here to the contracting officer.
  17. FAR 4.7 applies to contractors. Does 4.703 (b)(2) and (3) therein help? Also you should review the audit and records clause in your contract, which could be FAR 52.215-2
  18. The situation here would be the government employee, under oath, in a court trial, admits he or she was incompetent or inexperienced, despite the fact that he or she took this specific job. That doesn't seem like that is what you are specifically talking about.
  19. ...and I am sure you know that filing a suit does not mean it is improper.
  20. ...and the government may not step in, claiming that the individual's conduct was so egregious as to have been out of scope to acting in an official capacity.
  21. @retreadfed;@formerfed, several of the things you say are reasonable. I did not recommend immediate filing of anything but if an eventually come down to suing, what is wrong with the poster finding out now that there may be a legal recourse and "not just" talking to the government as a recourse? Some individuals, governments and companies become reasonable about negotiating and discussing disputes only after they are sued.
  22. It is a good idea to put the employee and the government on notice with a letter. However I am not aware that failing to do so means the lawsuit is not permitted to be filed. This can be discussed with their attorney. I am more bothered with your guarantee. Looks like another potential lawsuit in the making.
  23. Joel, this is what lawsuit I said: "tortious interference with contractual relations with the government." Admitting one is incompetent or inexperienced could result in loss of employment and injury to one's own reputation.
  24. I don't think it was smart of the government to assign this person the job they did. It has the appearance of being inappropriate. I think a case can be made against the government. It does not look like an accident that: "The person was a Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) responsible for being on site during all repairs. The individual now performs QA for the agency. This individual now inspects the work for the same personnel he used to support on the contractor side."
×
×
  • Create New...