Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

490

Members
  • Content count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About 490

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  1. Joel, The CO is no longer affiliated this organization, but we could probably track them down if necessary. The decision was the expected one, and one that I feel is correct given the circumstances. While never working construction contracts, my experience with claims and REAs have always been after the PoP. It may be different under construction contracts if it is a multi-year project. Pursuing any and all measures in those case makes sense. Since this work continued on another contract, and there is new work in the hopper that could go to another contractor, we do not want to ask "Mom" when "Dad" already said no. Additionally, we do not feel wronged by the decision, rocking the boat would not be fruitful or beneficial.
  2. I do agree with the CO. It was always my opinion that we would only be entitled to partial payment. Since this is a fair amount of money, I was hoping I was wrong and was looking for an alternate interpretation.
  3. Today, the CO determined that we are entitled only partial payment for the service provided within the PoP. Thank you to everyone that chimed in and offered their opinions.
  4. ji201874, The primary reason why we cannot carry on as we did before is that the work was previously on concurrent, multi-year TOs on an IDIQ with a 10 year PoP. It would be easy if we could rely on the precedent of the previous contract, but since the contract changed we do not have that precedence to fallback on. This question pertains specifically to this one year, single source bridge contract. The old work and new work are separate contracts. Before of the PoPs on the old contract, this never came up, we could always align the subcontracts with the TOs. You may be right that I am acting irrationally, but not intentionally. Initially, the answer to my question was unclear to me, but through your responses, and the responses of others, I see with more clarity that the best action may be the partial invoice. (pending CO determination of course). When someone provides their thoughts, guidance, or an answer, I want to make sure I understand why that is the answer. I do not mean to pander you or anyone, your time to respond is appreciated and helpful. Learning the why is just as important as the what to me. The dollar amount is not inconsequential to my company, and on top of that, I am risk adverse. Under the old contract, the services were active longer than a year, so we able arrange for co-terminus expiration of the circuits and the TO. The difficulty on this one is that the Government added new work on this one year contract. The IDIQ, and subsequent TOs had more attention paid to them when drafted and did not have this ambiguity. This bridge was put together hastily as the Government did not get the competitive follow-on released on time. Furthermore, the CO that issued and awarded this contracted is no longer affiliated with this Government organization, so their intent cannot be determined.
  5. ji20874 / Retreadfed, 52.232-1 is in the contract, and the Qty is 1 EA (from 0 to 1, by 1). It was asked earlier what was the intent of the parties. No one expected the service on day one. If the contract was for delivering 10 widgets, and I delivered 5 widgets, determining payment would be easy. Under ji20874's point, I would not be able to submit a partial invoice if my contract is for Qty is 1. I think it is unreasonable to believe I could not bill for partial services. It is our belief that the CO will allow partial payment, but the language supports zero payment. Has anyone come across partial payment for a Qty 1 item before?
  6. Vern, This sentence is very informative, and puts my question to bed. My position, internally, has always been submitting a full invoice was incorrect. Despite musings of others, I was never supportive of a full invoice. Internally, others interpreted 16.202-1 as full payment being justified.
  7. Vern, This sentence is very informative, and puts my question to bed. My position, internally, has always been submitting a full invoice was incorrect. Internally, others interpreted 16.202-1 as full payment being justified.
  8. The decision to submit a reduced invoice has always been an option, but admission of failure is not the sticking point. Since this is a fixed price contract, it can be argued that we are entitled to full payment under the FAR. We get into an interpretation issue from there, which is the reason for starting this thread. Under 16.202-1, it states "A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract." As to the parties intent, we have delivered these same services to this customer for nearly a decade, and they are aware of the delay when installing circuits into these regions. No reasonable person or party could or would assume the service would start on the PoP start date. This brings me back to the issue, that if the contract is written one way, but the intent was the other. Which one wins? My experience is the written contract wins. In this case, the written contract is ambiguous, which generally favors the party that did not write the contract. However, that is not always the case. The forum seems to have gravitated to a partial invoice being the right decision, pending a read from the CO. What we want to be certain of is that we are paid what we are owed under the provisions of the contract-regardless of the final amount.
  9. Culham, The payment provisions are defined as monthly, in arrears, after acceptance. Something tells me that may not fully answer your question though.
  10. Holy Moly indeed. This is for a service, and we can only submit invoices once the service is accepted by the Government. The service was not accepted until month six.
  11. Joel, Your input is appreciated. We are waiting to talk to the CO and get their opinion before we decide what to do.
  12. Vern, That is how I felt, but I was the odd man out. However, I have convinced everyone to that we need to get something in writing from the CO before any decision is made. Thank you for your opinion.
  13. My concern is related to an audit of the Government's administration of the contract due to it dollar value.
  14. Joel, When I read the FAR's description for FFP contracts and inclusive of performance incentives, I interpret the wording differently. 16.202 -- Firm-Fixed-Price Contracts. 16.202-1 -- Description. A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. It provides maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and imposes a minimum administrative burden upon the contracting parties. The contracting officer may use a firm-fixed-price contract in conjunction with an award-fee incentive (see 16.404) and performance or delivery incentives (see 16.402-2 and 16.402-3) when the award fee or incentive is based solely on factors other than cost. The contract type remains firm-fixed-price when used with these incentives. Please don't think I'm am trying to argue semantics, I am just trying to understand. The last line (bolded and underlined) is taken from the FAR and says it would still be considered FFP. The Government included performance incentives for meeting availability (e.g., the service has no outages longer than a set period of time).
  15. Ji, Our pricing file stated our subcontractors required a commitment of 12 months, but our proposal was not incorporated into the award. Our PM has stated he verbally told the COTR of the issue with the PoP after acceptance of the service, but the contract PoP could not be extended, the Government's reason's are not known, but believe they should have had methods available to them. We should have done more to document our communication and position at that time, but unfortunately we did not. Our belief and intent is clear, the concern is if our intent is enough to withstand a potential audit down the road. The RFP provides no guidance whatsoever on the issue. Given the location of the work, there is no way to deliver 12 months of service in a 12 month PoP. We are awaiting a discussion and read from the CO which will be telling as to the direction we choose. Thank you for your follow-up response.
×