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

2,669 profile views
  1. Neil Roberts

    FAR 15.408 Deviation - re: 52.215-12

    Beantown, you stated that the 2018 NDAA "provides a class deviation." I see you are new. Class Deviations are creatures of Agencies, like DOD. I did not see any language in section 811 that states it is a "class deviation." Also, as expected, the DOD Class Deviation language about thresholds for the prime and subcontract is consistent with the language in 10 U.S.C. 2306a regarding prime and subcontract thresholds before and on or after June 30, 2018 and prime contractor requests to modify the threshold.
  2. It would be better if you indicate what data rights clauses are proposed. And, generally speaking, the Contractor, and its subcontractors or suppliers, may only assert restrictions on the Government's rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data to be delivered under a contract by marking the deliverable data subject to applicable restrictions. The markings can be challenged by the Government. Can you provide the data item description for a Technical Progress Report? Not clear to me what is required. I am imagining just indicating progress towards milestones i.e., completed preliminary design review.
  3. Neil Roberts

    DAU Matrix

    Subparagraph (c)(2) requires a lot of thought about what the prime contract obligations are and you may not be given a copy of the prime for your perusal. A prime should include mandatory flowdown terms and conditions and other terms that are not so obvious to a subcontractor.
  4. Neil Roberts

    FAR 15.408 Deviation - re: 52.215-12

    With respect to requirements between prime contractor and subcontractor, some prime contractors wait for FAR changes to occur (or Agency Class Deviation requirements that are incorporated into its prime contract). To the extent they do that, my view is that it puts the prime contractor at risk of being accused it does not comply with "the law." I have heard it said that Contracting Officers are not authorized to apply procurement "laws" that are waiting for incorporation as FAR requirements.
  5. Neil Roberts

    FAR 15.408 Deviation - re: 52.215-12

    I suggest your company require subcontractor to comply with the subcontract cost or pricing data threshold per “Public Law” 10 U.S.C. 2306a subparagraph (C). See summary at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2306a
  6. Neil Roberts

    Reprocurement After T4C

    What about cost or pricing data and/or certifications or other matters that are required to be current at the time of award?
  7. My view. From your facts, it appears clear that the Government believes it is no longer contractually able to exercise the option, hence the talk about bilateral agreement. In my world, two parties can successfully find a contractual way to agree to the delivery of production quantities. You and/or the Government may have a sound basis to reach agreement on a different price. It is not clear if your company’s performance contributed to the delay in exercising the option. For example, if first article acceptability was delayed past the contract schedule date. This may provide an argument by the Government that it was not able to exercise the option until now. Also, not clear if there are any extenuating circumstances on the Government side such as funding and shutdowns that delayed the exercise of the option. Hopefully your company will also consider whether it still wants or is capable of performing production work. Finally, it is not clear from the facts whether or not additional un priced quantities may be ordered by the Government under an existing contract clause.
  8. Difficult to say what contract options there are without knowing all the contract terms and conditions. In general, it sounds like your client may sue the prime for breach of contract for 100% of the work unless the contract terms permits a unilateral change that reduces the work scope . From a business standpoint, it looks like under the given facts, your client has only completed 2/3 of the work. If that is the case, another option is to sign the task order that reduces the contract work, get paid for the completed 2/3 work and work with your prime to obtain more contract work in the future.
  9. Neil Roberts

    Bottoms-up pricing

    In my experience, both bottoms up and top down estimates are capable of being analyzed further before a bid is submitted. Neither one is necessarily "the gospel." Management may believe some challenges can be had and may for example, change some estimates to a lower amount based on information not necessarily known to the "bottoms up" people, but add a lesser sum back in to management reserve if possible. Some labor may be susceptible to a ambiguity as to the depth of work needed to comply with the customer statement of work.There also seemed to be many occasions in my experience where where the "customer" and/or advanced business marketing about customer funding gave rise to a range considered more winnable. Just saying.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.