Vern Edwards

@Retreadfed "Procurement" experience? I don't see it! Put your critical thinking hat on. She seems to have a lot of executive-level experience in certain defense functions, but I don't see any "procurement" (or acquisition) experience in her official bio. She's a typical late-term presidential appointee. She's sure to be confirmed by the Senate, she won't rock the boat, and she won't do any permanent harm. Were you being ironic? Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake.

@formerfed Why did they conduct a price realism evaluation? The service appears to be for support service staffing. As such, I'm thinking it was for an unspecified, steady-state type of arrangement𑁋the contractor was to provide an office staff to perform various administrative tasks specified on an ad hoc basis. If that's correct, then I wonder about the decision to evaluate price realism. There was no "understanding" of the requirements to be considered. As specified in the "PWS," the requirements were probably vague, at best, and would be fully defined on an as-you-go basis after contract award. I think of price realism as appropriate for project-type service contracts, which require the contractor to complete a single project within a specified period of time. In any case, the agency did not know what it was doing and the SSA failed to ensure that the evaluation was conducted properly. Did you note that they appear to have failed to evaluate professional employee compensation. Poor work badly done.

😆 Seems to me you should read the decision again. Those people did not know what they were doing. And I include the government's lawyers among "those people."

@ConMan411 Ceilings or "caps" on individual line item quantities or dollar amounts are not unusual. However, they are usually only contractual in nature and not reflective of specific statutory or regulatory limitations. They are program or project control mechanisms. As such, the parties may modify them as they see fit. I think your concerns are likely unfounded as matters of law or regulation. Even if the line items have different fund citations, the parties can change the CLIN ceilings as long as they have funds associated with the different fund cites. Frequent, unplanned changes in such ceilings may be indicative of poor program or project management. But that would be an entirely different matter. The GAO Redbook is a good source of information about budgeting and funding. However, it has little to say about program or project management. I suggest that you exercise discretion about making complaints. It may be that you simply don't understand the rules and what is going on. Contract funding can be very complicated.

Severance pay is a complex and sometimes contentious issue. I am not expert in the matter, but I did some research for you and found that there is an extensive literature about it. However, in order to access that literature you need some pricey subscriptions. I suspect that if you had access to such subscriptions you would not have come here for input. I do not think an agreement must be in place before employment. Indeed, the literature says that an agreement can be implied on the basis of company practice. I think circumstances matter. If this is an important question for you, then you should seek professional advice.

When you say funding was "certified," do you mean that a finance office had certified that funds were (1) available and (2) had been reserved for a particular acquisition? When you say "converting the ceiling," do you mean reducing the ceiling for one purpose and increasing the ceiling for another? Are all the funds from the same long-line account? If the answers to those questions are yes, why do you worry that what you described might be improper? Have you discussed this with the certifying accounting and finance office? If not, why not? What have you read about budget authority and obligation authority (not "contract authority")?

What happens when a contract is silent on an issue? See New York v. New Jersey, Supreme Court, April 18, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/156orig_k5fl.pdf

Thanks, uva383.

@formerfedKeep in mind that the FAA is not subject to CICA or the FAR. It need not consider price or cost before eliminating any offeror. Under CICA and FAR, price or cost must be considered before eliminating any offeror from further consideration, unless (1) the offeror submitted a materially unacceptable proposal and (2) the agency intends to award without discussions.

I think that by "gate criteria" the OP meant screening criteria. I think the OP was considering the idea of requiring offerors to submit SOWs in response to a SOO, evaluating the SOWs, and then selecting the offerors who submitted the best SOWs to be considered in the next phase of the source selection. I think the OP wanted to know if anyone had done that, yes or no. I think the OP then wanted to know if the idea was "feasible," yes or no. I think the OP then wanted to know what evaluation factors had been used to judge the SOWs. I would be amazed if no one has done that. I think the idea is feasible. (That's not to say I would do it.) I think evaluation factors could be SOW (1) clarity, (2) completeness, (3) practicability, and (4) process design efficiency, to name but some possibilities.

Why waste time on this kind of nonsense𑁋a poorly crafted inquiry followed by silence in the face of requests for clarification? The OP deserves no further attention.

I think it may be permissible to use one exhibit (DD 1423) for a contract with multiple CLINs. But I would have to check that. It may be necessary to have multiple exhibits if each CLIN is separately-funded.

That is proper usage in accordance with DOD policy and instructions. I presume that if you had two CLINs that required data deliverables, you had two DD Form 1423 exhibits, one for each CLIN. Block A on each exhibit would identify the CLIN with which it is associated. Block 5 of each data item on the exhibit would identify the part of the contract that specifies the work that is expected to produce the data to be delivered.

As ji20874 pointed out in his response, some, including me, do not think a monthly status report is "data" that the government is purchasing. It should not be treated as a deliverable. It should not be included on a DD1423. The SOW should simply state that the contractor must report the status of the program or project to the CO and the PM in writing on a monthly basis. AS for the OP's question, just follow the instructions in the documents I cited and in any local addenda. "Contract line item" should be clear to all but the truly clueless. The DD1423 is used as an "exhibit." It is a list of separate deliverables. See DFARS 204.7101. The purpose is to avoid the need for a large number of CLINS in Uniform Contract Format Section B. Each exhibit is assigned its own CLIN. That's the CLIN to cite in Block A. Each item on the exhibit has its own number. You can have multiple exhibits on a contract, each associated with a different performance CLIN. Do people "see" it done differently? Yes, because people don't follow instructions or depart from them for their own convenience or for reasons only God knows.. The system is not hard to understand if you take the time to research its underpinnings. I learned about DD1423, exhibits, and attachments almost 50 years ago. The system has changed little since. But at least three quarters of today's workforce are clueless. Some of that is due to no instruction or faulty instruction; some of it is due to a lack of curiosity; some to a lack of skill at inquiry; some of it is due to cut-and-paste behavior.

Go back and read. I responded to it on February 3. 2022.

@common_fate @formerfed The instruction for Block A on the back of DD1423 says "self explanatory." So what does "contract line item" mean to you two? Source? Furthermore, DOD 2010.12-M, Procedures for Acquisition and Management of Technical Data, May 1993, which is still referenced by DAU, paragraph C.3.3.3.1, subparagraph C.3.3.3.1..2 says: So, what are you two talking about? What you have "seen" is not always what is correct. The DD1423 is part of a system of documents, including the DFARS, the DOD manual cited above, and DOD Handbook 245D. The system has a purpose and a logic. Why not just follow instructions and understand the logic instead of relying on what you have "seen" and making stuff up?

You did not provide essential context. What process are you using? Subpart 8.4? Part 13? Part 14? Part 15? Subpart 16.5? Some other procedure? It matters. At what stage are you in the process? It matters. Are you asking about default for any reason under any circumstances, or do the reason and circumstances matter? Since you did not post in the "For Beginners Only" forum, I will say that you did a very poor job of crafting your inquiry. But since you asked an "overall" question, here is an overall answer: Maybe yes. Maybe no.

You want a "template" for a letter or email telling the former prime that you have received a complaint of nonpayment from one of its subs and that they should pay their sub? You want someone to tell you what to say in the letter? Really? Have you tried ChatGPT?

I find it impossible to answer your question, because I am confused by your account of what happened. If the unrecovered overrun costs were properly allocated as direct labor costs, then I cannot think how you can recover those costs by allocating them as indirect costs. My advice is to contact a government cost accountant.

The problem with threads like this is that in order to respond responsibly to the OP's inquiry we would need a complete history of the transaction and copies of all documents. We won't get any of that, so we cannot provide a professional response, other than to suggest this or that possibility. The transaction was of a kind that many of us learned to do at the outset of our careers𑁋request quotes and issue a purchase order. It takes effort to screw that up. Even a beginner can do it with proper supervision. Assuming reasonable care and attention to detail, how do you issue an RFQ specifying one thing, receive a quote for a different thing, sign documents, and end up in disagreement about what was bought and sold? I wonder whether the parties ever spoke with one another.

Anything to avoid thinking.

We "know" that? I'd need more than we've been given to "know" that. So would a judge.

I'm not sure that there was a mutual mistake. Careless reading is not a mistake. About mutual mistake: https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/mistake-and-ability-avoid-agreement#:~:text=The Basic Law%3A,Hence the contract is voidable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn1gKQzypcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqUusAfC7oc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mp0_iaWxAs Mutual mistake is a very complex idea. Do some reading. Search Google Scholar. There are a lot of articles about it, which is a sign of its complexity. Unfortunately, most are not in the public domain and you have to pay for them. If there was a mutual mistake, the a court or board would declare the contract void. The best thing would be for the parties to agree to go their separate ways without litigation. Both parties behaved carelessly.

Save us from the innovators.

I just noticed that the OP said that tCompany A signed he "award document." If so, and depending on the possible existence of other facts, it may be that Company A agreed to provide the specified Item X. Much would depend on how the transaction was carried out and what the award document says.