Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

taylor1234

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About taylor1234

  • Rank
    New
  1. @ji20874 Yes. we definitely want the adjustment. Have you seen such contradiction before? I am trying to find any examples or precedent for this to help guide how much we push. @C Culham Department of Education
  2. 1. Exactly 2. Yes. 3. Unilateral. Says "Contractor X IS NOT required to sign the document 4. Yes 5. New WD was issued through a Mod by the CO
  3. Yes,sorry. A federal agency. Yes. 52.222-41 is in our contract. We are paid at a fixed rate. The escalation provision says,
  4. In our original contract it says: However, in a later mod, they checked the 52.222-43 as being included in our contract. Has anyone seen this be added to a contract in a mod and be utilized? We received a WD recently that raises our rates substantially. It is a fixed rate contract and they do have an Escalation provision that is tied to BLS's ECI, but the WD increase wasn't a result of that.
  5. First post here and new to this world. Scenario: Company A is looking to purchase a share (e.g. 20%) in Company B. Is Company B governed by Company A's schedules and the Most Favored Customer policy? What about vice versa. If Company B already has a schedule, is Company A now governed by those prices? Neither company would be a subcontractor or vendor for the other. Two independent companies selling goods that may overlap. Would this come create any False Claim Act issues? I've researched and find cases where they go after the owner of a subsidiary but it is because of actions the wholly owned sub did, not because MFC extended to that company. Any help/direction is appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...