Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,052 profile views
  1. Thank you. We decided that the clause would be applicable, but not until we "invoiced" since Progress Payments are a financing tool. To comply, we reported zeros in SAM. I appreciate the responses.
  2. Thank you here_2_help, it confirms my understanding of the progress payments and how I view the total invoiced amount being zero. Maybe someone else knows more about the service reporting to see if the reporting is required when we are delivering something. We have other contracts that are services with a few materials that we report, but this task order is nothing at all like our "services" orders, this is delivering a complete system(s) built with COTS (if that matters).
  3. A task order awarded in 2016 has just now hit our Service Contract Reporting list in SAM. However, this is a FPIF task order and we are working on "progress payments" not "invoices" as we are delivering a system, with a ETA of 2021 for the DD250. I am a bit confused as to why we are now being asked to report on this task order, how its applicable since we aren't providing "services" and what amount I would use for "total invoiced" when we are using progress payments. Any advice? When I posed the question to our CO office, they referred me to the technical POC.
  4. I am not sure if this helps with the facts, and to be quite honest I feel I must be missing something major. Would Product Support be something totally different than the Service Agreements - even though neither have a set definition? Have I biased myself into thinking they are related? The language in the CDRL: "Service agreements for all hardware and software products delivered under this contract end no sooner than two calendar years after Final DD250." Language regarding product support in PWS: "The Contractor shall ensure all Product Support tasks are completed for the period from installation through Government acceptance (Final DD250) as detailed in PWS xxx." PWS xxx (Title being "Perform System Maintenance" has 2 subsections that state: xxx.1 The Contractor shall perform Level I and Level II system maintenance beginning at installation of system assets through the conclusion of the Final DD250. xxx.2 The Contractor shall repair and maintain the installed system to include collecting hardware and software repair data actions [CDRL DI-SESS-81315B - Failure Analysis and Corrective Action Report].
  5. Hi, It seems we have found ourselves in a situation where a CDRL is calling out an additional requirement that the Government wants but it is not stated in the PWS. Specifically, a longer duration of service agreements. The PWS does not include a specific requirement for "service agreements" only for "product support", which for Product Support has an end date stated through final DD250 in the PWS. The CDRL calls out "service agreements" with an additional 2 years after final DD250. There is no stated order of precedence, and both documents are called out as being incorporated into the contract, with the CDRL being listed first as an Exhibit and the PWS as an Attachment. My questions is: Can the Contractor be held accountable to deliver the additional duration of service agreements as listed in the CDRL if its not specifically called out as a requirement in the PWS or another area of the Contract? CDRL: DI-CMAN-81121, DATA ITEM DESCRIPTION: BASELINE DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT
  6. Postaward - Unfortunately all CLIN types were funded with 1 ACRN, I have inquired if we could go back and have separate ACRNS for each CLIN but was told by our former ACO it was too much work and could cause more confusion at this point (we are over a year into the program). We aren't shipping and invoicing in the most technical sense, we invoice for contractor use facilities (FFP) while requesting progress payments (cost based) for the build we are doing, which isn't to be delivered for a couple of more years. However, the facilities invoice was liquidated (payment withheld) by DFAS due to our ongoing progress payments on our delivery CLIN (FPIF) - since they share the same ACRN (per DFAS). I did speak with my new ACO since my original post, and there is concern that if we invoice for facilities again, it will get liquidated (payment withheld) and it will impact the master PPR numbers, it won't be balanced or something to that effect, maybe its the same issue that you bring up in your post. So I cancelled our most recent invoice due to this concern but I have not heard back from my PCO regarding the requested language/clarification so I am not sure what the PCO may decide to do yet on the entire issue. We would rather not submit PPRs or invoices until we have a clear understanding (or reach the end of our financial runway without payment), because I was also told that its very hard to get your money back once DFAS takes it, even if it was an error. I am on the contractor side so I have to temper down what I think should be able to happen to the limitations the COs have on what can actually be done. Any additional information or suggestions on the ACRN are welcomed as well. Thank you (and everyone else on here) for your input, it is appreciated.
  7. I guess I am hoping that if I can have the PCO put clear language in the contract, then that will tell the ACO how to enter it into the system, which should tell DFAS how to pay it. A wish and a prayer I suppose.
  8. ji20874 - Thank you for the language! Thanks to everyone for weighing in, I do appreciate it. I am going to see if the PCO could agree to the language offered by ji20874 and let him know it has also passed the Deviation Patrol check!
  9. Thanks for the responses, I am going with the first Q, here_2_help asked and I was wondering if anyone could weigh in on the language that I would like to propose to our PCO to add. I do not know if its allowed (legal?) and I do not want to ask the PCO to do something that may not be allowed: "SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/PAYMENT DATA: The following have been modified: PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS DFARS PGI 204.7108 DFAS Special Payment Instructions: The Contracting Officer has determined that none of the standard payment instructions identified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of DFARS PGI 204.7108 are appropriate for the following reasons: this contract contains complex funding with both multiple ACRNs and CLINs; and - per FAR 32.104 - since the contractor is a small business concern, the contracting officer must give special attention to meeting the contractor's contract financing need. If the contractor requests progress payments, requests should be at the CLIN level and submitted as separate progress payment requests. The contractor may submit only 1 progress payment request per month, per request. (ex. CLIN 0001 is PPR0001A submitted monthly, while CLIN 0002 is PPR0001B and submitted monthly.) As CLIN deliveries are completed and accepted by the PCO, the contractor shall submit the final invoice, to include any incentive fee amounts earned and the contractor shall be entitled to payment of the approved amount, of which these payments shall not be subject to liquidation for any other CLIN. ALL FFP CLIN invoices shall be submitted, no more frequently than on a monthly basis, at a prorated amount that coincides with the period of performance (ex. Period of performance is 12 months, contractor may submit a monthly invoice for 1/12th of the total FFP amount). These invoice payments shall not be subject to liquidation against any other contract CLIN. Since an alternate payment terms are being offered, these CLINs are not eligible for progress payments. All COST CLIN claims shall be submitted using cost vouchers, no more frequently than on a monthly basis, these payments shall not be subject to liquidation against any other contract CLIN." Any thoughts or red flags? Again, I am a contractor so I do not know all the rules that the various government parties have to follow so any feedback is appreciated.
  10. Hi! I have a situation where it seems DFAS/ACO/PCO/Contractor have a different expectation of how progress payments should work on this program. I am looking for guidance that could help everyone have the same understanding, or to weave the pieces together. I am the Contractor, small business, awarded a Task Order (which we all refer to as a "contract") under a GSA GWAC, primarily for services and material (aka not Construction). The total value to include all options is $80M. There are multiple CLIN types, mostly FPIF (with FFP for leased space and Cost for travel/materials). There are no "option years" just options for different systems to be built and delivered. These different systems are on their own CLINs, are FPIF and have their own target cost/fee & ceilings which are separate from the other CLINs, and each CLIN has its own period of performance and a requirement for its own DD250. At award, 1 FPIF CLIN for 1 of the deliveries (CLIN 0001) was funded along with some travel funding (Cost CLIN) and 1st period of lease space (FFP). During this time we submitted progress payment requests - on one 1443, which only included the total for CLIN 0001 - FPIF which is for the delivery of a system. Since we are small and its DoD, we are allowed 90% rate on costs, and received the 90% in payments. (Fee should not be included and was not.) During this time we submitted cost vouchers for travel - which the payment matched the dollars on the cost voucher. During this time we submitted an invoice for the FFP facilities - which DFAS witheld 90% of the amount due - to "liquidate" the progress payments being made on CLIN 0001. (Issue #1) Our funding for the above 3 are all on the same ACRN - which according to DFAS is why they liquidated because they do not look at the CLIN level, only at the ACRN level - unless its specifically called out in the contract that a CLIN is NOT subject to liquidation. Our PCO and ACO did not expect this to happen, the PCO at the time (we have had 4) issued a unilateral modification, but instead of calling out CLINs that were not subject to liquidation, according to the ACO the language used calls out ALL FFP/FPIF CLINS to be eligible for progress payments. We did not need progress payments on the FFP - lease clins as we were billing a pro-rated basis monthly (total/12months). So we are not comfortable with submitting another invoice against our lease CLIN for fear of it being liquidated as the previous one, so is the ACO, which stated DFAS liquidating these will make the amounts of the master progress payment incorrect. I am waiting on the current PCO to weight in on this issue and hopefully issue a modification with the original language we were expecting. Q: Is the PCO even allowed to exclude CLINs from liquidation? Currently, the other FPIF CLINS have been exercised and funded (again they are for a delivery of a separate system). Each of our FPIF CLINs have a period of performance spanning 3-4 years each, CLIN 0001 which was the first to turn on, has a delivery date of 2019, whereas CLIN 0004 has a delivery date of 2022. It was our (the contractor's) understanding that each CLIN, since they are severable and separate in our eyes, would each have their own progress payment form. The ACO states to put it on one form. I am hesitant due to the "liquidation" of invoices. I am waiting on our new PCO to weigh in. This is Issue #2. If we put all CLINs on the same form, as we delivered our systems and earned our incentive fee, if we billed for the incentive fee, wouldn't it be liquidated because we had other CLINs with open progress payments commitments? If so, this scenario means that we would never see any fee earned until 2022 when the final delivery is made - or even later when all the cost audits have been completed. Is it possible to have different progress payment forms for each of the FPIF CLINs for delivery of a system? If so, would we be able to invoice and receive any incentive fee earned even though the other FPIF CLINs are not yet completed and still receiving progress payments? The ACO didn't think DFAS would liquidate the invoice for incentive fee as we deliver the different systems, but I do not see any language that states this in fact I see the opposite and reading the liquidation as DFAS would liquidate all other amounts owed. Is it possible to get the basis or progress payments changed from based on cost to performance based? However, again each CLIN has its own milestones (SSR, PDR, CDR etc.), so we would still have the same question. If we have to track and perform at the CLIN level how can we get the progress payments to reflect the CLIN level - or is there no such option? I see there is language to allow something similar if the "rate of payment (%'s) are different, but that is not the case for us. Sorry its such a long post, I hope I included enough information on the situation. Any advise, opinions are welcome. This affects our long term budget so we need to understand completely how our payments are supposed to work or could work and get it documented in a modification/amendment.
  • Create New...