Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

kburnett4112

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About kburnett4112

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. I have cited both of these to the PCO and COR. The issue we are having is that for the CDRLs that state “Block 12 & 13: CDRL shall be submitted NLT 90 DAC. Government requires 10 working days for review/comments/approval. Contractor shall address any Government comments/questions within 10 working days of receipt” The Govt COR is stating that the above language means that the Government can send comments within 10 days after the contractor provides any revision. Ex: The contractor submitted the initial/draft per above language. Government comments were received, reviewed & incorporated. Contractor delivered revised CDRL (2nd submission) addressing comments as required in above language. This should have been the end.....but Government commented on the 2nd submittal (comments that were never provided previously). Contractor, as a courtesy, incorporated/addressed those comments & submitted a 2nd revision (3rd submission). And Government has again provided comments to our 3rd submission. Now, I have reviewed all of the submissions and all of the comments from the 2nd & 3rd submission was regarding data that was present in our initial draft....so why were those comments not provided initially to allow only 1 revision? It seems very excessive, especially since these are FFP. Government has been notified of that these excessive revisions could result in cost impacts & have never rejected a CDRL to date; only provided numerous rounds of comments. The notes that warn potential schedule/cost impacts are repeatedly ignored & they say we aren’t meeting requirements. In general, I think my question is that all of these CDRLs call out specific DIDs that detail the data requirements. Where are the requirements stated (or written) in terms of spelling, grammar or format? The DIDs don’t mention anything other than Contractor Format....so on what grounds is the Government rejecting an entire CDRL delivery because in 1 paragraph an acronym is all CAPS & in another its in parentheses? Or there’s 1-2 spelling mistakes/grammar not caught by spell check? I have not been able to track down where these guidelines are clearly stated & the COR noted that any disagreement with their rejection would need to include citation of the regulations I am basing my argument upon. Final Side Note: This contract is not primarily for data. The primary purpose is hardware, tech drawings, spares....these are just the CDRLs that make up the required tech package.
  2. I am looking for general information on inspection and acceptance of CDRLs. The effort in question is FFP, including all data, and includes delivery of 60-70 CDRLs. The effort includes FFP hardware, FFP services, and FFP Data. The pricing of the CDRL requirements was rolled into the other total FFP prices (like we have 1 FFP line item/CLIN that is NRE CDRLs, NRE testing, NRE tasking, etc) and 1 FFP CLIN (separately priced) for drawing package. Most of the CDRLs are marked with the code "DD" in block 7 (I/A at Destination), "A" in block 8 (approval is needed prior to final distribution), "ASREQ" in block 10, then "See Block 16" for Blocks 12 & 13. Block 16 (for almost all of the CDRLs) with additional language similar to the following 2 examples: 1. Block 12 & 13: CDRL shall be submitted NLT 90 DAC. Government requires 10 working days for review/comments/approval. Contractor shall address any Government comments/questions within 10 working days of receipt; or 2. Block 12: CDRL shall be delivered to the Government within 180 DAC. The Government will have 30 days to review, accept, and/or comment on the deliverable. After the Government reviews and comments on the deliverable, the contractor shall incorporate Government comments/submit change pages into the final electronic deliverable. Block 13: Final Deliverable shall be delivered to the Government 90 days prior to contract end date. Question: Contractor believes that Government is only entitled to one round of review and comments & once those are received, Contractor reviews, adjudicates and/or incorporates required changes and submits the final deliverable within timeframe noted for Contractor on the 1423 Form; and since data is FFP, Contractor assumed only 2 submittals for each CDRL (Draft & Final incorporating Govt review & Comments). Government believes that the language in Block 16 stating "Government requires 10 working days for review/comments/approval. Contractor shall address any Government comments/questions within 10 working days of receipt" (and does not spell out final deliverable) means that the Contractor cannot limit the number of reviews conducted by the Government. And for those CDRLs that do specifically reference a Draft & Final Deliverable/Submittal, Government believes that because Block 10 (Frequency) is coded with "ASREQ" that the Contractor is required to submit revisions of those CDRLs whenever the Government requires them. Hypothetically, Contractor submits draft CDRL and comments are received from the Government. Contractor incorporates comments and submits the revised CDRL as the Final submission IAW 1423 Form. 30 days later, Government provides additional comments from their review of the Final submission. As a courtesy, Contractor adjudicates and revises the CDRL again and re-submits 2nd Final. Government submits comments in response the 2nd final submission. Contractor rejects comments stating that the CDRL 1423 form provides 1 comment/review period from Government, then submission of final, which has already occurred. Government is now rejecting the CDRL delivery due to "grammar, format and spelling mistakes" OR Government is stating that Block 10 requires contractor to submit "ASREQ" or as required and the Government is now requesting an additional submission. I have seen the other discussion on CDRL Review and Acceptance and I believe the circumstance differs as these CDRLs were priced as FFP, not CPFF. The additional rounds of Government comments and reviews has been doubled or in some cases quadroupled for the Contractor. This has been brought up to the PCO that these additional reviews should be considered out of scope, but now Government is refusing to approve CDRLs citing grammar, spelling or format mistakes (like there may be 2 line spaces between paragraphs instead of 1 or a couple words are in font 11 instead of 12, etc). And I understand that generally it would not be a big deal; however, when CDRLs are FFP and there are 76 different CDRLs......review of comments, changes, revisions, and re-submissions begin to add up. On some CDRLs, Government has already exceeded 5 or 6 Comment submissions (with a revision of the CDRL to each afterwards). Where can I find clear direction on CDRL Acceptance? If the Government doesn't submit within the time period stated, is approval deemed? If not, what is the acceptance criteria? If the CDRL meets all requirements of the DID called out, but there are a few grammar or format mistakes, is that a basis for rejection?
  3. I guess common law legal procedures. The only clauses applicable in the contract are "Termination for Default," however, this is not a realistic option for the Government; and "Changes," with the change being a change in delivery schedule, but it is as a result of delays. The effort does include commercial items of a type, but is not under FAR Part 12...not sure the sorted background on this, as I came in after award. I have requested clarification and adequate/additional information supporting the value/cost of the delay stated by the Government and was told that we are not privy to that information. If we are disputing the amount they consider as "Value" for this delay, then we can formally issue a claim for disputes and they will provide adequate information to back up their "value" to the appropriate reviewer as required, but the formulas and processes they used to arrive at this value cannot be released for Contractor Review.
  4. Retreadfed, the applicable inspection clauses are FAR 52.246-2 (Inspection of Supplies - Fixed Price) and FAR 52.246-4 (Inspection of Services - Fixed Price).
  5. Retreadfed, I have looked at that FAR Clause and I wish it was applicable, but do not believe it is. That paragraph states that "If the failure to perform is caused by the default of a subcontractor at any tier, and if the cause of the default is beyond the control of both the Contractor and subcontractor, and without the fault or negligence of either," and I don't believe we have a case to support that the delay/default was beyond the control of the Subcontractor. Let's say, hypothetically, this was an effort that consisted primarily of COTS items being slightly modified for military use ("items of a commercial type"). The contract is not considered FAR Part 12. The effort includes multiple subcontractors/suppliers producing items of a commercial type that will eventually be integrated into a functioning system. For these hypothetical delays, let's say that the Subcontractor/Supplier changed its design or process without notifying the Prime (as these are commercial products); and when this change was finally communicated from the Sub/Supplier, quality reviews were completed by the Prime, resulting in discovery that the newly designed component now does not meet physical compliance requirements. Additionally, the Sub/Supplier had already conducted/completed a number of requirements tests (at the subcomponent level) with the non-compliant units. So, hypothetically, the delay is in large due to the Sub/Supplier not thoroughly "vetting" their changes to ensure the product still met all requirements, and ultimately resulted in delays to re-produce and re-test components. Another scenario might be that the subcontractor/supplier procured the incorrect part, which didn't meet requirements, and there was a delay caused to get the correct part re-procured or maybe components arrived at the prime and had been damaged in transit, causing a delay to re-procure long lead material that could not be repaired from that damage. Another question would be for an effort of this type, what is the general level of involvement/oversight that the Government is "entitled" over the Contractor and/or Subcontractors manufacturing, design, test plans to meet requirements, procedures, testing at the Supplier (at subcomponent level) when these are COTS Products? I think the issue at heart is that this product (and subcomponents) are considered COTS, but the Government believes and pushes to dictate every aspect of the design, manufacturing, schedule, testing, etc like it is a military product...hypothetically.
  6. I am new to this forum and first time posting, so I will do my best! Prime Contract is an IDIQ with DO's consisting of Testing NRE Costs, hardware, drawings/specs, software and associated data deliverables. All DO's are FFP. Although the hardware has not been previously produced in this form, it is being classified as NDI. All subcomponents were commercial items at their base, but they are being enhanced with military upgrades for this effort. The contract requires that a number of units be delivered to undergo verification testing, and upon passing production units will be delivered in relatively short order. Contractor experienced a number of delays (from subcontractors) in getting the hardware, which has pushed out deliveries for 7-9 months from the original contract due date. These delays are not due to any action from the Government. In order to salvage as much schedule as possible, the Contractor verbally proposed a faster approach for testing from what is currently on contract during a joint working meeting approximately 6 months ago. There was no formal agreement from Contracts for this new approach, just a "its sounds great technically, but we will have to assess what will need to change contractually." There are weekly telecons; quarterly PMRs; and monthly CDRL Reports that have notated the change in approach. However, approximately 1.5 months ago, rejection of the proposed path (that we have been executing to) was received from the Government, along with a request for consideration of the delay in deliveries. The Govt has provided a dollar amount that they believe is equal to the 7 month delay (current outlook). Additional information from the Govt was requested to better analyze the cost estimate for consideration. The Govt will not provide any insight into the calculation of that estimate, only a statement that it includes labor expended and funding dispersed for services on contract, representing a loss in value. There is no liquidated damages clause incorporated on this contract. The "Changes" clause and "termination for default" are both included. So here is/are my question(s): I understand (from reading various other posts) that when a delay occurs or the Contractor requests an extension, consideration has to be provided...which can be in the form of cost reduction or other items of value to the Government. But if a price reduction is requested, is that party not required to provide sufficient data to support review or analysis of that figure. I know that claims and REA's submitted by contractors have to include pricing data or other than cost and pricing data, so is that not applicable if the Government is the party requesting a downward adjustment of price? Thanks in advance for your help and insight.
×
×
  • Create New...