Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

PD216ohio

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PD216ohio

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thank you everyone. It sounds like I have no recourse and I suppose I will just be submitting my offer again. I will inquire with the NPS about if they released my numbers to anyone. Also, the original bidder also is privy to what was a winning bid and could give someone that info. I'm rather dismayed at the course of action here. There was a prebid today for the re-solicitation and at least 10 guys showed up, representing maybe 6 companies. Winter here so I am sure more companies are looking for projects, therefor the greater turnout than last time.
  2. I kind of addressed this before but I think I framed the entire situation incorrectly. The NPS awarded a contract to a competitor. I was second best offer on the RFP. There was no requirement for a bid bond BUT there was a requirement to produce a performance/payment bond within 10 days of award. Project never gets completed, because awardee could not produce a performance bond, and the project is now up for re-solicitation instead of passing award to me. If it matters, the only two bidders were the other company and myself. Both our bids were under the government estimated magnitude for this construction project. Once I was notified that this all occurred (and before they reissued the solicitation) I insisted that I should be the awardee but the NPS insisted they wanted to resolicit with the exact same solicitation package. Nothing has changed but the dates. It seems to me that once it was realized that the first awardee could not satisfy the bonding needs within 10 days, the NPS should have acted to disregard them and award to the next responsible offeror. The NPS waited 120 days (the totality of the POP) before taking any action. Do I have any recourse?
  3. These seem to largely address the cancellation of a solicitation prior to award, but after bids/offers. In my case, an award was made and the awardee was unable to perform. What should happen next if we were second in line with an accepted offer? On Edit: Also, the general statement in each of these is that the government must have a reasonable basis (deficiency of solicitation) for re-issuance of a solicitation, when in my situation there would be no reasonable basis since the RFP was actually awarded to an offeror that was unable to perform. Therefor the solicitation is deemed good and reasonable and we are only left with who to award.
  4. I bid a few months ago on a project that I really wanted. It appears that there were two acceptable bidders (myself and the other bidder). The other bidder was the low bidder but was never able to provide the necessary bonding, etc, to perform the project. The soliciting agency is considering reissuing the solicitation instead of moving to the only other bidder (me). Do I have any substantial or reasonable grounds upon which to contest the reissue and request or demand that award be given to the other bidder (me)? This was an RFP, Firm Fixed Price Contract estimated range 100-250k. The "winner" bid 87k, I bid 97k, so there wasn't a massive pricing discrepancy. I am hoping to find a requirement to force award rather than go through the entire solicitation process again.
  5. I think I have a valid claim... but getting the CO to agree to that fact and authorize additional monies is an entirely different thing. I did contact an experienced firm and they feel this is pretty cut and dry in my favor. I suppose I have time to compose a well written and researched letter and request for equitable adjustment that might help me get to my goal here. Thank you for your help along the way.
  6. It was an interim amount and was tied to the NTP and crane plan approval. It states simply that it was for "mobilization of a crane to site".
  7. On a related topic, are any of the participants of this thread an attorney who specializes in these matters?
  8. The gov approved a change order for an amount that was roughly half of what we requested, based upon the estimate for crane and time. However, the project is now complete and the crane time was slightly greater than anticipated and the amount of my company time (on site and administrative) has not been compensated at all.
  9. I found out that the weight was likely inaccurate about 2 weeks after the project began. We were literally working on the project when the error was discovered.
  10. Hi Everyone, Apologies for the delayed response but, as you might imagine, I was immersed in the matter at hand and in a remote location. Yes, this was a fixed price dismantling project of a floating station on an inland lake. It was under the simplified acquisition threshold. The work was described by stating 100% removal was required. There was also a Q&A period in which weights of various items were asked, including the item of concern in my predicament. Plans (which do not seem entirely complete and excluded any fine details of the subject section of equipment) were supplied along with photos. In the Q&A period, the weight of the subject piece was specifically asked, and stated to be 15kips. It was by luck and happenstance that we discovered it was actually 81k (calling crane companies and happened upon the a contractor from the original install). Once that was discovered, I contacted the COR and simply asked him to verify the weight of the piece, at which time he now stated it was 35kips. I then went on to gain verification (actual copies of his records) from the original contractor that it was indeed 81kips, which I did receive and at which point I presented the issue to the COR. According to the crane meter, it was over 81k with whatever additional equipment may have been mounted since the original build and some water retention. There was no doubt that the weight of 81kips was accurate when it was newly installed. Furthermore, the section was not able to be sectioned or reduced in size prior to removal as it was suspended upon and in the center of the floating station and mostly submerged in water. We were unable and disallowed to work in or under the water due to the nearby water inlet and the suction it generates. Further proof that the unit was not reducible might be that it was also installed as one assembly. The Contracting Officer did authorize a change order that did not allow for our full costs associated with the change. There was an estimated cost (since we would not know until the work was complete) of which the CO authorized about 60%. He disallowed any labor costs under the reasoning that the POP was 30 days and that we were still under 30 days, even though we were on schedule to be complete in 3 weeks if not for the change. I was issued ample time to complete the project, and the deadline was met. Extending the period by 10 days, including a full weekend of work. We completed the project 100% on the last day. Here is the full list of incorporated clauses. They do not include 52.236-2. : FAR 52.203-19 Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (Jan 2017) FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management (Oct 2016) FAR 52.204-13 System for Award Management Maintenance (Oct 2016) FAR 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting (Jul 2016) FAR 52.204-18 Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance (Jul 2016) FAR 52.204-19 Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications (Dec 2019) FAR 52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal (Jan 2017) FAR 52.209-11 Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law. FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors- Commercial Items (Jan 2017) FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items (Jan 2017) FAR 52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations FAR 52.219-6 (Dev) Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (Deviation 2019-O0003) FAR 52.232-18 Availability of Funds (Apr 1984) FAR 52.232-39 Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (Jun 2013) FAR 52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Dec 2013) FAR 52.237-1 Site Visit FAR 52.237-2 Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation FAR 52.253-1 Computer Generated Forms DFARS 252.201-7000 Contracting Officer’s Representative DFARS 252.203-7000 Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (SEP 2011) (Section 847 of Pub. L. 110-181). DFARS 252.203-7002 Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights (Sep 2013) DFARS 252.203-7005 Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (Nov 2011) DFARS 252.204-7003 Control of Government Personnel Work Product (Apr 1992) DFARS 252.204-7004 Alternate A, System for Award Management (Feb 2014) DFARS 252.204-7008 Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls DFARS 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (Oct 2016) DFARS 252.204-7015 Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support DFARS 252.209-7004 Subcontracting with Firms that are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism DFARS 252.223-7008 Prohibition of Hexavalent Chromium (Jun 2013) DFARS 252.225-7048 Export-Controlled Items DFARS 252.232-7003 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports (Jun 2012) DFARS 252.232-7006 Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions DFARS 252.232-7010 Levies on Contract Payments (Dec 2006) DFARS 252.237-7010 Prohibition on Interrogation of Detainees by Contractor Personnel DFARS 252.243-7001 Pricing of Contract Modifications (Dec 1991) DFARS 252.244-7000 Subcontracts for Commercial Items DFARS 252.247-7023 Transportation of Supplies by Sea (Apr 2014)
  11. I appreciate all of the advice and pointers in the right directions. I will research the clauses and see what I can do with any of it if needed. I know it is never as simple as this... but in essence this is the same (to me) as if the government asked for bids to remove a pile of dirt and in the Q&A it was asked "how much dort is there in that pile"..... the government replies "there are 15 tons of dirt in that pile" and their turns out to be 81 tons of dirt, I can't imagine any circumstance where there would be no added value consideration.
  12. The basic issue is that the government identified a certain component as weighing X and it actually weighs Z (about 6 times the stated weight. This requires us to bring in a large crane at an added cost of about 30 k. They incorrectly identified this weight via a specific question about that in the pre-bid Q&A.The other issue is that it is causing an extra week of work between the work involved in discovering the mistake, working to get the right equipment lined up... and then the work to process the much larger piece. We could have originally disposed of it by setting it on one truck and hauling away... now we will have to manually reduce it into at least four pieces to do the same. The government did finally approve the extra equipment cost but refuses to add any cost for the extra week, stating that the POP was 4 weeks so I am not over the POP. Although I would have clearly been done in 3 weeks if not for their mistake. I suppose it's better than nothing but I still don't think it was fair.
  13. I will go through those clauses and the contract. As you might imagine, this issue and the project itself has consumed all of my time so far. I reported this to the government as soon as I could verify it was accurate. Within 2 days of finding out. The weight of the unit in question was provided in a pre-bid Q&A, in response to a question specifically about its weight. There was no site visit available nor could you inspect this unit up close, if you chose to do so independently, since it is within a restricted area.
  14. Hi guys and gals, I am on a project that I won for 85k. A dismantling project in which the government stated the weights of various elements. Problem is that the farthest item was stated as weighing 15k lbs but we discovered during the course of work, that it actually weighs a whopping 81k lbs!! It was only by a stroke of luck that we came into contact with a subcontractor that was involved in the original build and found this info out, during the course of the project. Not only has this error led to a significant delay but also in greatly increased cost as any options to remove this fixture have been reduced to only one option, a large crane that costs 4 times as much as our intended method of a smaller crane. The government seems to be resistant to approving the change order even though the mistake is egregious and clearly theirs. The increase in cost is over half the value of the contract at about 50k. If the government ultimately denies my claim, what are my options? I can pay out of pocket for the extra costs but can I recover them after the fact? If I accept regular payment at the end of the contract, can I still pursue the additional cost? This has become a major snag in a project that was running smoothly and right on schedule. I'm sick about it.
  15. As a contractor, I can confirm that there are a LOT of "dirtbags" in the construction business. A lot of inexperienced, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am types. The tough part is being good and charging appropriately when competing with these types. I service a couple national chains locally and the president of one told me once that I had two reputations with them. I was expensive and I was good. My approach to government work has really been that I bid the price I am comfortable with. If I get the job, great... it is worth my time. I'll travel anywhere for the right price.
×
×
  • Create New...