Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

318 profile views
  1. Thanks everyone for the comments in this thread and otherwise. They are valuable in shaping my perspective. Been a long time lurker here and you guys are all awesome. TNT1
  2. @ji20874@joel hoffman Apologies for the confusion. The Government is not intimately involved here. I am the prime contractor looking to establish an IDIQ with one of our subcontracts for parts for FY24-25. There is no overarching prime contract for this IDIQ, but the subsequent task orders to be released within FY24-25 will have prime contracts tied to them. When the customer (Government) would be involved is when the task Orders are pulled in an audit (CPSR) and the overarching IDIQ is called into question in regards to the 2 year gap between the final negotiated price and the formal placement of the IDIQ. The reason for the 2 year delay between a negotiated, finalized price predicated on CCPD between myself (the prime contractor) and the subcontractor is employee turnover and perhaps laziness.
  3. Thanks all for the responses. While I agree, I am still searching for a clear basis to move forward with (other than what would seem to be obvious logic). To play devil's advocate to my own position: The highlighted language seemingly indicates leeway in terms of agreement on the date in which CCPD can be used. If both the contractor and subcontractor agree that the negotiated price 2 years ago was predicated on valid data from that time, under what basis could the customer take exception? It seems like the prudent action would be to receive new CCPD, but is there really any evidence to suggest that the customer would have grounds to assert defective CCPD here?
  4. Thanks Fara & Vern. We might consider that the future releases against the IDIQ are likely to be tied to a future prime contract, but at this time, not tied to the Prime contractor's proposal to the Government. In the event that the IDIQ pricing is incorporated on a future proposal to the Government, then the CCPD would still be "outdated" in the sense that it is from 2020 (or 2022 if we get it refreshed), which one might assume is why the FAR references that the data needs to be current at time of agreement on price. Most higher up individuals at my company are of the position that the price was agreed upon and the letter of the law dictates that the negotiated pricing does not need to be re-evaluated. The opposite position seems to be rooted in logic...but my research for clarity has not yet yielded a clear result.
  5. Thanks all - let me clarify: we are a prime contractor and the IDIQ is going to be placed to the prime's (our) sub. As the prime, is our sub's CCPD (now 2 years old, but was certified at time of price agreement) at risk of being identified in a later Government audit as not current, accurate, and complete? The price agreement was reached 2 years ago, but the IDIQ was never released. The FAR speaks to the data needed to be certified at time of price agreement, but in this situation, price agreement was reached 2 years ago through negotiation but the IDIQ was never issued to the sub.
  6. @joel hoffman IDIQ between the prime and a sub for pricing for units to be procured in 2024-2025. Pricing was agreed upon 2 years ago, but reasons that are unclear the IDIQ was never formally placed with the supplier. "Pick back up" refers to the prime contractor now formally issuing the IDIQ to the sub.
  7. Situation is as follows: We are in 2020. IDIQ over TINA, supplier submits certified cost or pricing data for the price of the parts for 2024-2025. Cost analysis is developed, eventually the price is agreed upon. IDIQ is never placed. 2 years later, we pick the IDIQ back up and look to issue to the supplier as was negotiated and agreed upon in 2020. No new documentation. Are we, the prime contractor, at risk of defective certified cost or pricing data?
  8. Happy July 4th Weekend All, The scenario is as follows: Prime contractor is issuing an RFQ to three companies: one is the manufacturer of part A, two are authorized distributors of part A. Is this indicative of adequate price competition as outlined in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)? My beginner's logic is telling me, maybe the offerors could be considered competing independently, if the distributor had significant inventory that was received based on bulk pricing or some other scenario. If we as the Prime adopt competition between manufacturer and distributor as always adequate, how foolish would we be? (i) A price is based on adequate price competition when— (A) Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement BTW - thanks to the contributors for the laughs over past years (and future) reading this forum.
  9. Joel - Appreciate the input. This scenario is from the prime contractor perspective. The cost breakdown is the supplier essentially saying, here are all our hours, you figure out the rest. So as the price/cost individual figures out how to attempt some kind of analysis to determine F&R pricing, some of us are left wondering how we can't get our supplier to give us the data we need to make an adequate analysis. I agree that the contractor's risk is low based on the work being completed, and I suppose the Gov't would expect that the profit the subcontractor applied to their actual costs is indicative of that risk. W If the negotiator was someone who knew what they were doing, would the expectation be that they convince the supplier that they need to have a comprehensive cost breakdown that includes material, labor, travel, ODC, and profit applied to each of those categories? Couldn't the supplier in this case say, well its FFP so shove it?
  10. Hello All - I have come across a subcontract in which we are now negotiating with a supplier near the 180 mark after letter subcontract issuance. The catch - all of the work has been performed and we are now negotiating a price. In a new proposal (40% reduction in price than the original proposal 180 days ago), the supplier has submitted other than certified cost and pricing data based off their cost incurred in which they represent the costs to be actuals. They submitted their material, labor, travel, and ODC costs at cost + profit. Within the cost breakdown, they do not disclose profit. These costs were determined to be F&R but their travel and ODC costs were not evaluated. Even though the contract will be definitized as FFP - it certainly doesn't function like a FFP contract. This is a convoluted situation so I appreciate anyone bold enough to take a stab at it. 1.) Is this a cost plus percentage of cost contract? 2.) Is the expectation that travel, ODC, and profit all need to be determined to be F&R? thanks, TNT
  11. Accidentally reposted - sorry.
  12. I am relatively new to the contracting world and have been tasked with closing many POs (my company is the prime) in support of contract closeout. My question is not exclusive to a singular PO or situation, which I know makes it difficult to answer, but I am looking for general opinions on if the below scenario should require complete closeout documentation and formal closeout: FFP contract for commercial services - payment records show that our supplier invoiced us for $100.00 less than the contractual value. Should I receive documentation stating that the supplier will not invoice anything further along with a final invoice? Or, since the work seems to have been completed 4 years ago, let it go and unilaterally deobligate the remaining funds? Company procedure dictates that we need to receive many documents for each service, no matter the contract type. In my limited perspective many times for these small dollar value, commercial services it seems superfluous to require formal final invoicing and documentation. I can’t find any specific FAR references, so I am wondering what individuals on this boards experiences might be.
  • Create New...