Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About IAD

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. By the way Culham, When I talked to her I made reference to 52.243-1 Alt 1 but she said that the clause that apply to this contract was 52.212-4 because according to her 52.243-1 is for FFP Construction services. I told her that 52.212-4 requires both parties to agree to a change and ask her what would happen if we didin't sign the change as not agreeing. She responded that then the government can make an unilateral change and declare the contract in default if we don't comply with the new hours of operation. This seemed to strong-armed to me but after further consultation and talking with her legal department she understood. Again it sounds kind of harsh but she is a very nice CO and we have more contracts with her but in this specific case I think she just wanted to remain cool with the customer (COR and Engineers) at our expense.
  2. Good afternoon, Im sorry for not replying earlier. As you all mentioned it seems that we were entitled to the adjustment. We took the situation to our lawyers and after further consultation with the CO she decided to talk to the agency's legal department (which I believe was the first thing to do) and they said that in fact we were entitle to adjustment. My guess is that she wanted to please the customer (COR, engineers etc) and because of that didn't talked to legal in the first place. Thanks to all of you for your responses. Have a great weekend!
  3. We won a SCA FFP contract for the maintenance of some sensitive equipment where the RFP stated that the hours of operation where going to be from 8:00am to 4:30pm. We have been performing for the past 2 years without issues. As a matter of convenience - at contract start up- we agreed with the COR (I KNOW) to establish two shifts one from 6:00am to 2:00pm and another one from 2:00pm to 10:00pm. Now the customer wants to change the hours of the contract from 10:00pm to 6:00am. We notify the CO that we will comply but that we will request equitable adjustment. The CO came back saying that DOL notify them that since there is no differentials on price in the SCA rates whether the work is performed on day or night we were not entitled to adjustment. Is this correct? I believe that the DOL argument would have be true if the RFP initially stated that the hours of the contract may vary according to customer needs. However since this was not the case I believe that this would be a material change on the contract terms requiring an equitable adjustment. We have already contacted our lawyers how ever I would like to hear different opinions. Thanks
  4. Culham, Thanks for your response I have read most of the post you mention however many of the cases are related to large business were the SBA COC procedure does not apply. I understand that Further, it is the offeror’s responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which clearly demonstrates compliance with the solicitation and allows a meaningful review by the procuring agency. How ever the GAO has stated that a responsibility factor can not be converted in a responsiveness factor by the procuring agency (I apologize for not having reference but I believe it was from the latest Coastal-Enviroworks case at the COFC). Therefore back to the question: Can the agency eliminate the proposal as unacceptable in a pass/fail responsibility factor or does it have to refer the case to SBA no mater how deficient the proposal was in that factor? The solicitation didn't mention the Alternate No.1 Thanks for referring me to FAR 15.307. For what it says a contractor not included in the competitive range does not have right to revise his proposal. However I have read various GAO cases (I apologize for not having the reference again) and in one of the them the protester was alleging that the agency should have not disqualified him and instead should have left him revise his proposal to correct some deficiencies. However GAO said something along the lines of: If the agency decides to award the contract without discussions then we will dismiss the protest however if the agency decides to conduct discussions then we expect that the agency allows the protester to revise his proposal. It seems to me that in complex FAR 15 solicitations there are so many requirements that submitting each and every details is a very difficult task. That being said I believe that within FAR 15.307 context an agency could eliminate a contractor from the competitive range due to one omission while leaving other contractor that could also have omissions not detected by the agency. This will lead to the unfair scenario where a contractor in the competitive range could revise its proposal trough discussion and an eliminated contractor could not. Is this the way it is? Thanks again for your input
  5. Good night, On a FAR 15 Solicitation, Can an agency refer a company to a COC for a responsibility technical factor that was stated as pass/fail in the solicitation and then withdraw the referral and disqualify the company for material omission? Can this be seen as an excuse to disqualify a contractor that was perceived to be non responsible on a pass/fail technical factor? What if the agency then decide to conduct discussions with the non-eliminated contractors? Is the agency required to conduct discussions also with the eliminated contractor? By the way the proposal had the provision for FAR 52.214-7 and 52.215-1 however the proposal states that some prices will "be inserted after negotiations" (and negotiations are considered discussions). Another fact is that the solicitation didn't mention that there was going to be a competitive range. I know these are many questions but I will explain further if needed. Thanks
  • Create New...