Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Guest108830

  1. 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 remaining fee? I've always understood this to be a choice by the KO, though cannot find support in the FAR/DFAR.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 of FAR 16.306(a) and (d)(2). (a) indicates that the fixed fee does not change with actual costs and (d) (2) would suggest that in order to receive 100% of the fixed fee, the stated LOE (hours) specified must have been provided. In an underrun, the LOE specified would not have been provided. Thus, the questions.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 Coast Guard work, but also on another program that's viable, and divert (de-obligates) the funds of the viable program back to the Navy so that Navy personnel (civilian) can perform the same or comparable work as what the Contractor was performing under the viable program. As a result, the Contractor lays off a portion of its work force due to the Navy pulling funds in-house from a viable program so that Govt personnel are not laid off. Question 1 - is this possible? Question 2 - under what authority (if any) would the Navy be acting under? Question 3 - if A-76 was still around, would an A-76 Public/Private Competition (or its equivalent today?) have to be done before the Navy could bring that work in-house? I've read the Asst Sec of Defense 2016 Memo (enclosed). Uncertain if it addresses these issues or not. Update_on_OMB_Circular_A-76_Public-Private_Competition_Prohibitions-FY2016 (1).pdf
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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))?
  9. 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 process with Offerors that Service Contract Act does not apply and no wage determination shall issue - principal purpose is determined to be 95% professional (e.g., engineering, logistics, configuration management, etc.) FAR 52.222-41 is included in the prime MAC ID/IQ award - are ALL task orders therefore subject to 52.222-41 (through 52.216-18(b)) even though the ID/IQ scope has 20 different functional areas that the task order KO can choose from ranging from professional to service employees as well as CONUS and OCONUS (foreign military sales, etc.)? I'm hearing rumors that DOL can impose 52.222-41 on all task orders not because of the principal purpose test, but because FAR 52,216-18(b) is present in the ID/IQ thus making all task orders subject to the terms and conditions of that contract and thus all task orders are subject to 52.222-41 regardless if the task order KO included the clause or not in the task order. I cannot find any cases on this matter one way or another.
  • Create New...