Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

CMoore

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CMoore

  • Rank
    New
  1. With this background, how is the contractor being found responsible? On paper they more than meet all the responsibility standards of FAR Part 9.
  2. Ji20874, It is to your second bullet: Or, does 15 pout of 30 mean the single product has 30 deficiencies, of which only 15 have been corrected? If YES, then the contractor should get nothing -- zero -- nada -- zilch -- unless and until it delivers a conforming product with zero deficiencies. I say this as a general proposition -- I do not have the benefit of knowing what the product is, and might take a different approach under some circumstances. This is the position we are also leaning toward. Of course, due to the technical complexity of what we are working with we do try to tak
  3. I would agree if this situation were a one off instance, but it is not. It a consistent problem where the contractor will fix the issues with the highest priory and never get around the rest because it is not in their best interest to do so. So, I know that our position is to maintain as much leverage as we can in order to have something to hold the contractor accountable for to incentive them to resolve the remaining issues. I know sometimes it can get adversarial, but we are not trying to be inflexible or unreasonable by withholding final payments to the contractor. It's not a punishment, b
  4. The contractor is trying to argue that they should be able to invoice as progress is made and that they have done it in the past, which is true. That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct and PCO, fairly new to the contract, was looking for something more black and white to support telling the contractor no. This is an ongoing issue and I know that we would prefer to withhold the full amount until the contractor brings the device to full conformance. However, if the contractor can argue it's PCO's discretion then they most likely will put pressure other members of our team to put pressure on t
  5. Ji20874, we do have clause 52.232-16 in our contract. I think between your responses and Retreadfed, along with some additional research (https://media.defense.gov/2007/Dec/21/2001712587/-1/-1/1/08-038.pdf), I think I have my answer. From the perspective of the 52.232-16 the contractor gets 80% of cost incurred with the remaining 20% being paid upon final inspection/acceptance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. In our case, the contractor did not meet the inspection crtieria for the Government to fully accept the device. Therefore, a decision was made to conditionall
  6. FAR 46.101 “Conditional acceptance” means acceptance of supplies or services that do not conform to contract quality requirements, or are otherwise incomplete, that the contractor is required to correct or otherwise complete by a specified date. The contractor did not deliver a device that conformed to the Government's requirement. However, the Government still accepted the device with the condition that the contractor fix the deficiencies and finish all completed work. As such, the PCO withheld a sufficient amount of money to incentivize the contractor to complete the work as allowed in
  7. It is my understanding that progress payments occur under the normal execution of the contract. If progress are not being made then the PCO can work with DCMA in order to suspend progress payments or reduce the liquidation amount, that is true. Theoretically, if the liquidation rate is 80% of incurred cost then roughly 20% of the CLIN value should be remaining when delivery is made. If the contractor delivers a fully conforming widget on time they can liquidate the remining amount. However, in our case they did not, so technically the PCO stopped the progress payments when they decided to wit
  8. Let's assume the contractor was to deliver a technically complex widget under CLIN 0001 at a specified date in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. The date came and the contractor informed the Government they could not make delivery in accordance with the contractual date. Due to the needs of the customer (urgency), the PCO took the advice of our technical team and accepted a non-conforming widget in order for the customer to at least received some benefit. As PER FAR 49.607(e) the PCO calculated the amount of work remaining to fix any deficiencies or non-completed work a
  9. Per FAR 46.407(e), “The contracting officer must discourage the repeated tender of nonconforming supplies or services, including those with only minor nonconformances, by appropriate action, such as rejection and documenting the contractor’s performance record.” In addition, per FAR 46.407(f), “When supplies or services are accepted with critical or major nonconformances as authorized in paragraph (c) of this section, the contracting officer must modify the contract to provide for an equitable price reduction or other consideration. In the case of conditional acceptance, amounts withheld from
×
×
  • Create New...