Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Radu C.

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Radu C.

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The contract does not say this. The contract references AIDAR 752.225-70 which references 22 CFR 228 "Rules on Procurement of Commodities and Services Financed by USAID". This CFR states that vehicles must be manufactured in the U.S.. ADS (USAID's policy manual) 312 states that there is a blanket waiver for certain types of vehicles.
  2. Yes, this makes sense. ADS 312 references a blanket waiver. What is not clear to me is if AIDAR references the blanket waiver from ADS or not, but, of course, we cannot make such assumptions without CO's confirmation. Thank you for your input.
  3. A question for AIDAR connoisseurs My company has always interpreted that the U.S.-made requirement for vehicle purchases and long term leases (22 CFR 228.19) is IN ADDITION to the requirements governing procurement of restricted commodities (AIDAR 752.225-70). In other words, even if a vehicle is manufactured in the U.S. , prior CO approval is needed per the referenced AIDAR. if a vehicle is made outside the U.S., a waiver is needed to waive the geo code requirements AND CO’s approval is needed per AIDAR If it is a RHD vehicle and the blanket geo code waiver from ADS 312.3.3.2 applies, CO’s approval is STILL needed per AIDAR. The language in AIDAR 752.225-70 is somewhat ambiguous. It hints that CO's approval OR compliance with a waiver is required, but not both: (c) Restricted goods. The contractor must obtain prior written approval of the contracting officer or comply with required procedures under an applicable waiver as provided by the contracting officer when procuring any of the following goods or services: (1) Agricultural commodities; (2) Motor vehicles; (3) Pharmaceuticals and contraceptive items; (4) Pesticides; (5) Fertilizer; (6) Used equipment; or (7) U.S. Government-owned excess property. If USAID determines that the contractor has procured any of these specific restricted goods under this contract without the prior written authorization of the contracting officer or fails to comply with required procedures under an applicable waiver as provided by the contracting officer, and has received payment for such purposes, the contracting officer may require the contractor to refund the entire amount of the purchase. The question is: is it common in the industry to interpret the above AIDAR to mean that the blanket waiver from ADS 312.3.3.2 (b)(2) (in case of RHD vehicles) is sufficient and prior CO approval is NOT necessary as long as we are “complying with required procedures under an applicable waiver….”? Procurement of motor vehicles is a political and sensitive issue and, in my experience, contractors don't take chances and stay on the conservative side when it comes to approvals for these goods. Do you have a different experience? Your thoughts are appreciated, Radu
  4. Thank you, although it is not my intend to bypass or find ways to trick the client. As a prime I make my choices on whom to subcontract with subject to FAR 44. My decision to award a FPP consultancy or subcontract is driven by the fact that this specific work is not complex and requires minimum customization. I am being efficient by not burdening the subcontractor or myself or the client with excessive paperwork of a cost reimbursement contract. Yet, I feel penalized by a COR who demands additional scrutiny from what is supposed to be a simple subcontract.
  5. The reason I am pushing back is because I have a limited number of LOEs in my prime contract. Counting LOEs from Fixed Price consultancy agreements or subcontracts will accelerate my spending of LOEs and thus will end the contract sooner than anticipated.
  6. If you Let's say you are asking a consultant to gather data from 30 locations. The data should include the number of households, household income; and household size. Since this is not a complex task, you decide to issue the agreement based on a fixed price. You estimate that it will take the consultant 30 days to conduct this survey. You determine a reasonable daily rate of $X + per diem + travel costs to come up with a reasonable fixed price for this consultancy. You Fixed Price Agreement with the consultant will not specify any of these costs, correct? It will specify a PRICE that will be paid to the consultant regarding of how much costs he/she incurs in delivering you the data. So, I cannot request that the consultant spends 30 days gathering the data. I cannot request that he limits his work day to 8 hours, 5 days-workweek. He can work 24/7 for a week and deliver me the data and I will have to pay him the full PRICE of the agreement is the data is satisfactory. My question is how can I reasonably hold this consultant to 30 days (my original estimate) if the OUTPUT is a survey and not days of LOE.
  7. Her rationale (she is a CCN) is that 'fixed-price deliverables-based consultancies' are not delivered within an undefined duration, these consultants's contracts are tied to a fix number of days / LOE, which qualifies as LOE, and should be calculated alongside the respective relevant LOE categories. In addition, the Short-term Technical Assistance (U.S. and TCN) category also includes 'fixed-price deliverables-based consultancies' (there is no such language in the prime contract) if they are counted as LOE, it follows that CCN STTA should also be treated using the same principles. I don't think this make sense from a contractual point of view.
  8. I am working for a USAID contractor. We have a CPFF Term prime contract with USAID and issued a Firm Fixed Price Independent Consultant Agreement to a consultant. The COR is requesting that we track LOE and count them against our prime contract's LOE. We argue back that tracking days of LOE is not consistent with the regulation governing fixed price agreements (FAR 16.202), but also is not realistic or feasible given that payments are released solely upon acceptance of deliverables rather than incurrence of costs such as the costs associated with days of LOE. In line with FAR 16.202, there is no requirement for the consultant or subcontractor to report any costs associated with the deliverables. Neither are consultants/subcontractors tied to a fixed number of days. In other words, the subcontractor or consultant has no obligation to deliver a certain number of days of LOE and is only held accountable to specified deliverables. The COR is still pushing back and I am ready to reach to the CO. Before I do, are there any situations where a contractor would be required to track and report LOE on a Firm Fixed Price subcontract/ICA? Thank you Radu
×
×
  • Create New...