Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

490

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 490

  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 "M
  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
  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 any
  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 cu
  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 an
  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 poten
  16. Joel, Initially I thought the same thing about FFP and incentive fees. When I checked FAR Part 16, subpart 2, it seems the Government can use FFP contracts in conjunctions with performance incentives under 16.402-2. Despite including incentive fees, the contract is still considered FFP. (http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/16.htm#P66_12044). The Government included 16.402-2 incentives in the contract. I am not the PM, but our PM stated he tried to get the CO to extend the PoP, but the CO stated they were unable to do so. Not being present in those mee
  17. I need to ruminate on your point of what the parties intended vice what the Government intended. My concern is as you state, the CO is not the final opinion that matters when it comes to payment. My position was that we should not invoice for the full amount, and pressed for the attorney's read. Should the CO side with us, we will request a written response for our files, and will discuss invoicing at the point. If the CO does not believe we should invoice, we will not likely invoice. Regardless of the decision, I want to understand both sides in case a similar situation comes up in t
  18. Don, We did seek the advice of an attorney, who thought invoicing for the full amount was not the safest interpretation. However, he also went on to say it may be possible to invoice for the full amount. For him, the heart of the issue is what the Government intended. Was performance a) to begin to build the required communications capacity, or (b) to actually provide the required communications capacity. The contract is not well written, and this question is not addressed, or mentioned at all in the contract. Seeking the advice of an attorney was not offered in my original posts abo
  19. A question has been posed to the CO. He is unsure himself, but is looking into the matter. A week prior to the end of the PoP, the previous CO rotated out and he was assigned. My concern is that if a CO approves an invoice, it does not necessarily mean the costs should have been paid. If that were the cause, an auditors job would be pretty easy. 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." My question pertains to the interpretation of thi
  20. My question is not understanding my contract, it is regards to invoicing. The Government ideally wanted the service for the full twelve months, but there is no way to activate the service on the first day of the PoP. We can submit the invoice, and the COTR and CO may approve the invoice and we may be paid. However, that does not eliminate an auditor coming through a few years from now and disagreeing with our position and requesting funds back. Therein lies the heart of my question. Allow me to boil down the question to a simplified scenario and question. The Government issued us a 1
  21. We are a telecommunications provider to the US Government and provide terrestrial data circuits to remote, and sometimes hostile, regions in the world. Under a 12-month contract, the Government requested a proposal for 12 months of service. The circuit is not considered accepted and billable until the Government performs its testing IAW the acceptance criteria. Given the regions we deliver service to, it is normal for circuit activation and testing to take three or more months from execution of a subcontract agreement to the activation and testing of the circuit. The salient poi
×
×
  • Create New...