SKoslow

Members
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SKoslow

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Recent Profile Visitors

47 profile views
  1. I will leave the conversation with one additional note. When I was a CO in my past life we had these discussions often for services type of work. If the contractor was providing monthly financial reports that show that the labor was close to 50%, and had a plan to get back to 50% we never challenged the reports. If they were below 50% we would add this to their CPARS (I had 1 instance of this). I never had a situation where I would have ever considered a T for C, or D, for this situation, or where I would have requested the SBA to get involved.
  2. So here's another wrinkle, the clause states 50% of the labor is to be performed by the prime. Is this a goal or requirement? So what is the CO supposed to do if the 50% drops to 49%, 40% or even 25% where is the line? If its a Deliver order contract and the work that was planned according to teaming agreements changes during execution, and the work is weighted away from the primes capabilities, is this the fault of the prime? While this is an extreme example the situation applies.
  3. Vern, again thank you for your response. There seems to be more attention and conversation with regards to the Ostensible Contractor rule. I have been at this for a while, and I don't remember these conversations ever coming up. So here is the question relating to the above. There has been recent protests where the protest has been upheld showing the contractor relied to heavily on a sub. Where is the line I wonder? If as part of the proposal you identify a sub or subs performing key work or staffing that is less than 50% of the work but is still a critical piece of work and proposal, how should the contractor manage this risk in teaming, staffing, and work share. Second part: The Prime must provide 50% of labor dollars not including material. I was always taught that this is over the life of the contract or task order. Is legal to propose a phased staffing plan this is an extreme example but here you go: Base plus 4 years services contract. Base Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Prime Sub Prime Sub Prime Sub Prime Sub Prime Sub 30% 70% 40% 60% 50% 50% 60% 40% 70% 30% Thanks Scott
  4. Thanks Vern for your quick response. 1st scenario: HR firm is a sub and pays the employees for the first 6-12 months. After 6-12 months the prime hires/picks up the employee on the primes books. This avoids paying a large recruitment fee of 5-10%. 2nd scenario: Prime pays employee on day 1, and would pay the recruiting firm the recruiting charge of 5-10%. Scenario (1) Firm is listed as a sub. Scenario (2) they are only listed in the recruitment/retention/staffing plan. Thanks
  5. Good afternoon everyone. 52.219-14 states: (c) By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for - (1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. (2) Supplies (other than procurement from a non manufacturer of such supplies). The concern shall perform work for at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacturing the supplies, not including the cost of materials. (3) General construction. The concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees. (4) Construction by special trade contractors. The concern will perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees. Second scenario: If the Prime uses the HR/recruiting company and pays a recruiting fee, and they are the employee of the prime is there any restriction? Is there any restrictions to these scenarios? Thank you