Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

PD216ohio

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PD216ohio

  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  3. On a related topic, are any of the participants of this thread an attorney who specializes in these matters?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. I'm not sure what you mean by timely in this regard. I am only seeking award status (which hasn't been noticed anywhere else either). If you mean timely as in 10 days to file a protest, that time should begin after an award declaration is or should have been known. Some awards take a week to decide... others take over a month.... some take longer. I have one project that is past 30 days but the CO is responsive to my follow ups. I have contacted him once at the two-week mark and then again right after the four week mark. He has responded both times and advised that his office has just been incredibly busy and he is working on it. The project is something that they do need done to prepare for the next project.
  13. Email or even texts are fine. I handle all of the service work for a couple national chains in my region. Almost all communication is by text. After about 15 years of being their main guy things are very simplified with regard to communication. I don't even write contracts anymore. I send them a quote, they email me back to go ahead, I do the work and send them an invoice and I get paid. It's a nice simple system. In my case, I personally perform on all of my projects. It's one of the things that has kept me working through all of these years because my clients know they are getting my personal quality of work, not just an employee or sub of mine. I guess it makes it an odd transition into government work where companies as small as mine might not be as common. I've done two government projects so far and both ended with extraordinary comments about the quality I've provided. To me, that is the best part. I really take pride in a job well done.
  14. Thank you, I appreciate that. It is just frustrating. If I am awarded, I have to be ready to move forward and complete a project in a timely manner... but I am at the mercy of when an award is made and if it is made. Another consideration is when I know I have sharpened my pencil and have good numbers and then I am worried about placing other bids which might result in an overlapping project. I am a small company and one at a time is our typical capacity.
  15. yes, I track all projects that I bid. If there is not an award notice, I follow up after a week or two and then additionally if I don't get responses. I've hand a handful that just never respond in any way.
  16. The issue has usually been on projects under 50k.
  17. I'm hoping to get some perspective from the other side of things. I am a contractor so I don't really get to see the inner workings from the contracting officer's side and thought this group could shed some light. More often than I would have expected, there are solicitations (typically RFQs and RFPs) to which I respond and never see an award and most times I am unable to get a response from the contracting officer. From my viewpoint, I often put a lot of work into preparing quotes, proposals, etc. Attending pre-bids, writing out technicals, working out pricing and all of the other activities of preparing an adequate response can take a lot of time. It's one thing to not be the awardee but it's something else to never see any award made and to have COs completely ignore any phone calls and emails inquiring of the status of these solicitations. I guess my question is why does this happen? Understaffed and overworked COs? Lazy COs? A technical reason that is easier solved by ghosting respondents? I suspect most of the people here are on the government side of operations so I thought it might be a good place to solve my curiosity. Thanks.
  18. Than you for pointing out that previous conversation... it is very interesting. I think the effective answer is that the CO in this case, regardless if 52.212-1 changes anything, can ammend the solicitation at any time before award for any "legitimate" reason they claim. In this specific circumstance, 52.212-1 was incorporated (without modification) into the RFQ. The offer was due on a certain date. A little more than an hour after all offers were due, an amendment was issued to extend the due date by a week in order to arrange a site visit (which was set for the day after the original due date). I would assume that the CO can justify the extension by claiming that a site visit was requested and would generate potentially more and better offers.
  19. I say it is "either or" because the RFQ contained 52.212-1 which changes the quotation to be treated like an offer.... at least that has been successfully argued in past GAO decisions.
  20. I only suspect I may have been a sole bidder since this past week was mostly holiday time for most. I may have used the term "bid" incorrectly as it was actually a quotation or an offer actually. This RFQ contained by incorporation 52-212-1 which changes the standards of an RFQ.
  21. I am a bidder on a RFQ that was due at a certain time on a certain day. A little over an hour after the due date, the bid was extended to allow site visits. My concern is that, with the holiday week, my bid was the only one and after the due date passed the CO wanted to modify things. Is this a valid extension of the due date (now extended for another 7 days) even though the site visit was scheduled for the very next day after the amendment.
  22. I didn't mean to be insulting. I was referring to two different groups. The first group being the people here who didn't think 52212-1 changes the rfq. The second group being COs not in this discussion who don't understand or do sloppy work. As someone on the contractor side, I see many many sloppily or lazily written solicitations. However, I do see some that are superb and it kind of excites me when I do.
  23. Likewise, it is not absolute that the other bidder would win. However, without progressing, we don't have any details about that other bidder, their bid and the evaluation process.
  24. Hi ji20874, Excellent citations. I find case law extremely fascinating to read (I served 6 years as a local legislator and have created a few laws myself). You mentioned that there would still be an allowance for amendments by the CO and that I've overlooked this point apologies if I didn't mention it clearly but there was no amendment, in my opinion (for what that's worth lol). The solicitation cleary stated that experience was an evaluation factor. Many of the offerors did not submit an experience profile (inexperienced bidders, perhaps). The CO then sent an email offering them a second chance to do so. I would not call that an amendment but an offer to correct deficient bids. On edit : I wanted to add that I did some searching of GAO decisions by using the combined keywords of "rfq" and "52212-1", and that's where I felt that I found many pertinent cases as well.
  25. There are a lot of people here that don't realize that the full incorporation of 52212-1 into an rfq changes the rules of simplified acquisition. This fact has been decided so in numerous GAO cases. It seems to be a common mistake (or careless) to incorporate it and not understand what the effect is.
×
×
  • Create New...