faroutgeek

I recently inherited a contract as a COR which is coming up the end of period of performance on 19 FEB 2024. We are in the last option year. My client claims that the prior COR told them they can use their funding to purchase services or equipment within scope until the last day of the contract. My Contracting Officer stated that the once the contract ends Government cannot receive any more services and that all products and services must be received by 19 FEB 2024 as it is the contract end date and she is not willing to entertain any extension. My client disagrees based on previous guidance provided and expects the contractor to provide services after the POP since they executed the purchases within the POP. I seem to be stuck in the middle and am not sure how to get to a resolution. 

I awarded a CPFF contract in February this year. We are in the process of adding optional requirements to the contract and the contractor submitted a proposal with higher indirect rates. The contractor stated that their indirect rates change in June every year and as a result are want to apply the new indirect rates for the optional work which have been approved by DCAA. Additionally, the contractor wants to change the indirect rates for all the labor categories awarded in February as well. Since the indirect rates are higher this is going to cost the Government more. 1) Am I allowed to accept the new indirect rates for the labor categories initially awarded on the contract? 2) If I accept the new indirect rates for the optional work, will I have 2 sets of indirect rates for the rest of the POP?  

Hello All, 

While the furniture contractor was on site today they also discovered what looks like potential mold. So this adds a layer of complexity as well. The contractor is stating they will do some testing at no cost for the Government but the Government's immediate response was that they do not have any additional funding but need the project completed regardless

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

I agree with ji's recommendation.

You would take that action as the Contracting Officer absent any cure notices and no failure in performance and turn around and re-compete the exact same requirement? 

Out of 10 clients within the same organization only 2 have personality conflicts. They cannot support it with non performance issues. The high level leadership for the client does not support it either. 

So, if I re-compete with absolutely no documented performance issues, what is preventing the incumbent from bidding on the re-compete? Why would the incumbent just walk away? Considering there are multiple customers and on-going efforts, this would cause major disruption of services.

What I am seeking is case law or any previous cases that show the Government does not exercise the option for no apparent reason and turns around and re-competes the exact same requirement 

13 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

Based on what you wrote, I recommend not exercising the option instead of doing a termination for convenience.  Maybe you can not exercise the next option but instead invoke the FAR 52.217-8 option for six months if needed to cover your re-competition time period.

Out of 10 clients within the same organization only 2 have personality conflicts. They cannot support it with non performance issues. The high level leadership for the client does not support it either. 

So, if I re-compete with absolutely no documented performance issues, what is preventing the incumbent from bidding on the re-compete? Why would the incumbent just walk away? Considering there are multiple customers and on-going efforts, this would cause major disruption of services.

What I am seeking is case law or any previous cases that show the Government does not exercise the option for no apparent reason and turns around and re-competes the exact same requirement 

Type of contract: CPFF Task Order
In Option Year 2 of 5

$ Value: $400,000,000

Scope: Professional Services

History: Since the base year there have been continual relationship issues between the contractor and some government customers. The continual back and forth has caused some government mid level leadership to even falsely accuse the contractor of wrong doing, theft and repeated attempts to calm each side down. Now, some of the mid level government leadership is ramping up efforts to convince leadership to either terminate the contract or not extend Option Year 3 (about 2 months away) and re-compete the contract. Some government users feel like that is the only to "get rid of this contractor" because of the constant arguments. 

By the way: The contractor has had some minor growing pains like expected for a 400 Million contract with complicated environment of the government. However, there is no documented evidence of non performance what so ever. I have been tasked to prepare a detailed business decision document to show ways to terminate the contract so the government can get a "new shiny contract with a new contractor" (their words). 

Obviously I do not recommend a new contract. Are there any case laws or references I can provide to the customer that this is a very bad idea? This is based on just personality conflicts from both sides. 

On 1/12/2021 at 7:05 AM, ji20874 said:

If it really is an order against a GWAC, then the question is JEFO rather than LSJ.  Think LSJ if you are in FAR 8.4 and think JEFO if you are in 16.505.

A. Is this a service or is it construction?  This will make a difference in the authority you cite for the modification.  Or, if the modification will change the nature of the work from service to construction, then the additional work might be outside the scope of the parent GWAC and impossible to accomplish on the order (by definition, GWACs are for IT, not construction).

B. If the nature of the work is not changed, then you ask if the scope of the order before and after is unchanged, viz., update/modernize the interior of a building to include new IT equipment.  If the scope is still the same, then the additional work may likely be treated as a within-scope change with no JEFO.  However, if the scope of the order has changed (such as from updating/modernizing the interior of a building to include new IT equipment to making the facility functional), then the additional work may likely be seen as outside the scope of the order and a JEFO will be required (or a new competition conducted).

You haven't shared the dollar amounts of the original and additional work.  Dollar amounts are not dispositive in any way, but can be helpful for context.

When you respond with additional information, perhaps you can explain your opinion in the debate and the "why" for your opinion.  Doing so will be allow us to be more helpful to you, and will maximize your learning.

Hello, 

Thank you for your response and additional information. Maybe this is JEFO. To answer your questions: 

1) This is service 

2) As far as $ amounts go....$ amount of FFP services = Approx $14M and the "additional work" discovered as part of the survey = Approx $100k

I appreciate your time and guidance

On 1/12/2021 at 6:21 AM, joel hoffman said:

What is the nature of the original work and what is the nature of the additional work? 

Original work was to install IT equipment and furniture. As part of the site survey, it came to light that the area to be updated contained asbestos and some other minor issues that need to be corrected in order to install the furniture and equipment. Additionally now we have been informed that the building also potentially has mold

Hello, 

I have a FFP task order awarded against GSA contract vehicle. When the contractor conducted the initial site survey they noticed some additional items not captured in the PWS. The customer agrees that the work needs to be performed and are willing to fund the additional work. Internal debate is: can the modification be issued as long as pricing is determined fair and reasonable or is any additional documentation such as Limited Sources Justification required since this is "additional / new work" not originally anticipated?

Hello, 

I am having one of my contractors having issues too. Any more updates on this? The contract is in FPDS and the FSD Helpdesk does not seem to know how to assist. The contractor is claiming that they cannot submit a helpdesk ticket and are asking the CO to submit a helpdesk ticket. Any guidance is appreciated. Seems like a lot of people are having issues.

Joel: Thank you for the response. I did look up the archives too and was wondering if there was anything more recent since DOD Manual was dated a while back. Seems like it is still applicable. Appreciate the response

Where can I find specific regulations stating any Government or DOD official cannot recognize individual contractor employees with letters or appreciation or certificates?

1) Estimate is above SAT

2) Yes, commercial item / services

3) Customer claims they used historical pricing and work done prior with internal experts but not providing any additional information. Customer also does not want to solicit and instead just re-scope the requirement to bring it within the IGE. Can I do that and change the scope?

After publishing RFI's and engaging industry I received 1 proposal that is double the IGE. This is a FFP award with multiple CLINs. Customer now does not have enough money and will not concur that IGE was off and wants to make some of the CLINs optional and accept the proposal. I have researched this topic and have asked others and it seems like I am being directed to re solicit. Customer does not want that either. Any suggestions? 

On 5/20/2020 at 11:51 AM, Retreadfed said:

Does the "client" want to do this in order to avoid having to award a new contract and take the chance that someone other than the preferred contractor gets the award?

Exactly ....that's what they are trying to do and not create a separate contract. But, they want to direct it to a specific firm

I believe this has been asked before but, need some clarity on the issue: 

We have a task order against a GWAC to a large business 

Client would like us to direct some upcoming work to a specific small business subcontractor under a separate line item on the contract. 

I do not believe there is anything in the FAR that specifically prohibits this or is there? If we were to go that route, what would be the mechanism to get this accomplished? If prime does not agree to the work being directed to the specific sub, is there anything the Government can do?

Ok...what if there is an unforeseen emergency? Let's say both parties come to a solution..Now what? 

Not sure. Seems like this should have been something that the Government included however didn't have the foresight to think of emergencies. 

If I have a task order against GWAC and there is an emergency declared by the government and they still want services performed, would I incorporate 252.237-7023? 

Sole source 8(a) set-aside - Didn't see anything specific in GSAM. So, if price is reasonable and IGCE is lower, just document why there is a difference? 

This is a sole source set-aside...not competitive. What do I need to document difference between IGCE and proposal? Let's say 1) proposal is reasonable and 2) proposal is not reasonable

Hello,

I have a small business set-aside under FAR 19. Received approval from SBA and the proposal came in significantly higher than IGCE. Considering that IGCE is significantly lower than proposal, what type of data/justification is needed to explain differential between IGCE and proposal? T&M type contract