Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Vinnie888

  • Rank
  1. Thanks for the input. Yes we retained counsel but the net result was that the penalty risks (and costs) under FAR 49.402-2, FAR 49.402-6, and 49.402-7 far outweighs the outcome of protesting a no-cost settlement. We'll protest the CPARS windfall when the time comes. And no the SBA was not helpful in this manner, although it provided lateral leniency from the KO's perspective. Cheers.
  2. Hi There, Looking for some general advice - we are a prime with a contract with an US Government agency. Due to reasons I won't get into here, the KO is proposing a no-cost settlement which releases us from the contract obligation for no-cost, instead of Termination for Default. The sticky point is that the CPARS review being submitted includes Unsatisfactory rating for Quality/Schedule/Management, which we disagree. My understanding is that Termination for Default would also carry the same CPARS ratings, but in addition a potential cost component for the re-compete (e.g. 2.5% of the value of the contract), therefore a no-cost settlement seems like a great win-win but the CPARS ratings concerns us. I would expect a no-cost settlement to be a not-at-fault mutual termination and neutral CPARS ratings. Being this is an 8(a) contract through the SBA, I wanted to ask if the above resonates with your experience while I await response from our counsel/SBA rep. Thanks.