Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Guest108830

  1. Perhaps I should be asking the question in a different way. I understand the "repair" and "refurbishment" aspect of (d)(2)(iii). It's the "replacement" aspect that seems to run afoul of para. (h). Para. (d)(2)(iii) says, "[a]ny...replacement...shall be at Contractor's expense." The words "any...replacement" is without bounds. This appears to ignore the how and why the replacement became necessary to begin with (i.e., was Contractor negligent?). If accurate, this appears to cut against the grain of para. (h) whereby the Government bears the burden of risk of loss, even if Contractor (and
  2. The word "Replacement" is present within (d)(2)(iii). Wouldn't that be considered a "loss" having to replace a GFP item?
  3. Pursuant to FAR 52.245-1 (d)(2)(iii), if the Gov't indicates its providing its Government Furnished Property (GFP) in "as-is" condition, doesn't that reverse the risk of loss from the Government (pursuant to 52.245-1 (h)), to the Contractor? If yes, DoD is not supposed to use 52.245-1 Alternate I (per DFAR 245.107(1)(ii)) which Alternate reverses the risk of loss of GFP to the Contractor. Isn't this the same thing as using Alternate I, having the Government declare the GFP in "as-is" condition? 52.245-1 (d)(2)(iii) states: "(iii) The Government may, at its option, furnish property in a
  4. I get it. Thanks again for all the responses.
  5. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
  6. 45.000 ( b ) ( 5 ) also states "fax machine." The correct terminology should be "facsimile machine" but for one reason or another the Government decided to use the vernacular, but almost everyone knows what's it's pertaining to. While not impossible to place a desktop computer on your lap, it's just a bit more cumbersome. A laptop is a computer, just like a smart phone is also a computer - it runs off of bits and bytes. Asking the Contractor to write a check without blinking an eye is somewhat antithetical. The contractors I'm familiar with would most certainly question this approach, esp
  7. FAR 52.237-2 Protection of Government Building, Equipment and Vegetation is also present in the Cost Reimbursable Task Order. I would assume if the Laptop was provided by the Gov't for use on base, but due to Corona Virus, allowed to be taken off-base, that if damage / loss occurred on-base, the Contractor would be liable to the Gov't under FAR 52.237-2. The fact the laptop is moveable and taken off-base should not upset that determination. The laptop was not declared Government Furnished Property and therefore not added to the contract as part of GFP listing. I'm concluding the risk of l
  8. According to FAR 45.000(b)(5), computers used incidental to performance of work at an installation are not considered Government Furnished Property (GFP). However, with the COVID aspect and teleworking, under a CPFF contract / task order when a Defense Contractor removes the Government provided laptop from the installation (with permission and issuance of a Property Pass from the Navy/Gov't) for use with teleworking at home (or elsewhere) and that laptop is stolen or damaged through no fault of the Defense Contractor, is the risk of loss on the Contractor, or the Government? Property Pass
  9. Neil - I wish it was as straightforward as those terms make it. Unfortunately, it is not. The level of effort clause(s) from the Navy contract / task order indicate payment of fee on a per hour basis and is silent as to what happens for providing less than the specified LOE. Please see below: HQ B-2-0015 PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT - ALTERNATE 1) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010) (a) For purposes of this contract, "fee" means "target fee" in cost-plus-incentive-fee type contracts, "base fee" in cost-plus award- fee type contracts, or "fixed fee" in cost-plus-fixed-fee type contracts for
  10. Good point on the mischaracterization. The full LOE contracted for was not provided and thus the actual costs came in less than the estimated costs. I think I have the answer. In order to receive 100% of the Fixed Fee the LOE specified in the contract must have been provided. Anything short (absent change, etc.) of providing the full LOE, then the Fixed Fee would be commensurate with that lower effort and the Contractor not entitled to 100% of the Fixed Fee. And if not entitled because Contractor did not provide the full LOE, may the Contractor ask for (and receive from the KO) the r
  11. No scope change. No change at all. Just underran. There are funds left over for labor. Just not expended. De-obligation would be in order. Trust this helps.
  12. Question: Under a CPFF Term / LOE, when the fixed fee is set at inception, but the Contractor performs an underrun, is the Contractor still entitled to 100% of the Fixed Fee set at inception or is the fixed fee prorated consistent with the LOE executed? No changes, mods, etc. Just underran the hours and dollars (i.e., 10,000 hours on contract for $600k (in labor); but delivered 9,800 hours for $588k (in labor). Fixed fee set at inception at 5% or $30k). Is the Contractor entitled to the entire fixed fee of $30k even though the Contractor did not deliver the full 10k hours? I'm aware
  13. Jacques, thanks. Your responses answered my inquiries completely. I was looking around in DFAR 237.102 before asking the question and for some reason completely missed the notification requirement. I consider this closed. Thank you again.
  14. Scenario: DoD Branch (let's say Navy) entered into a competitive CPFF Task Order under an ID/IQ MAC award. The base plus 5 one year option Task Order is funded my multiple Navy customers (e.g., Army, Air Force, US Coast Guard, etc.) A couple months into performance of the Task Order, the Coast Guard decides to pull its current and future funding from the Navy, and of course, impacts the Task Order. Navy re-arranges the Task Order such that instead of the Navy losing a number of its personnel that oversaw the Coast Guard work, Navy decides to pull funding from the Contractor not only on C
  15. Imposing = DOL making a re-determination that the task order is subject to Service Contract Act and directing the task order KO to issue FAR 52.222-41, 52.222-42, applicable wage determination, among other on the task order.
  16. I'm familiar with 14c07 and I'm certainly not relying upon rumors, that's why I'm on this quest. Thanks again, I'll keep looking.
  17. Thank you both for your responses. Yes, I'm aware that DOL has final say. Let me ask the question another way, is there any authority (case law?) that shows DOL imposing SCA upon a task order issued under a MAC ID/IQ award through the use of FAR 52.216-18(b) (or DFAR 252.216-7006(b))?
  18. In a Navy, ID/IQ MAC award (Seaport-e) - what case or cases are available that support the Department of Labor imposing 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards (Service Contract Act) upon task order issued under an ID/IQ MAC even though the Navy's express intent is that SCA is to be determined on a task order by task order basis by each cognizant contracting agency? For example, DoD task order KO intentionally excludes clauses 52.222-41, 52.222-42, wage determination and any other Service Contract Act related clause in his/her contemplated task order and reinforces through RFP Q&A
  • Create New...