Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Paula C

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Paula C

  1. 24 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

    See FAR 16.602 for your answer.  When you read this citation, remember that ODCs are "materials" as that term is defined in para. (b)(1)(ii) of the clause at FAR 52.232-7.

    So what you are saying is that if materials are acquired via means other than purchasing them outright, i.e., subcontracting, travel, indirect costs, etc., then "materials" can be billed on a labor hour contract?

    I was taught that "materials or ODCs" could only be included on a T&M contract not a labor hour.

    From 52.232-7 (b)(1)(ii)

     (A) Direct including supplies transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the Contractor under a common control;

                         (B) Subcontracts for supplies and incidental services for which there is not a labor category specified in the contract;

                         (C) Other direct costs (e.g., incidental services for which there is not a labor category specified in the contract, travel, computer usage charges, etc.); and

                         (D) Applicable indirect costs.

  2. 2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

    FAR 52.216-22 is supposed to be included in the basic IDIQ contract, and is binding on every task order in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.216-18, Ordering, which is supposed to be included in every IDIQ contract, paragraph (b), which states: "(b) All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall control."

    Vern you are correct, this should be part of the IDIQ contract.

    I'm no longer actively working with the PSC these days but I'd certainly love to review the base contract just to see if these were in fact included.  

    I thought my initial question was simple and mundane enough for a yes/no response but I've learned a lot from this discussion and its never really that simple.  In the future, if I have additional questions I will endeavor to provide more context, and ask the right questions.  I greatly appreciate your insight.  I am satisfied

  3. 3 hours ago, ji20874 said:

    "...there were underruns of services under the tasks orders that the government wanted..."

    So, please help us understand what this means.  Select one:

    (A) The contractor successfully completed all if the work, and there is still money on the table that we want to use for additional work.

    (B) The contractor did not successfully complete all the work, and we still want it done by allowing more time but not more money.

    @ji20874I have seen both instances. In some cases like (A) funds remained after the successful completion of all work and the Gvt wanted to use it to get additional work done; and in other cases, (B) was the case where the work had not been completed by the end of the period of performance and funds still remained so the Gvt wanted to extend the POP so the work could get it finished.  

    Most, if not all of the work I supported was for nonseverable services contracts for studies where there are a lot of unknowns involved.

  4. @joel hoffman no offense taken and sorry for dribbling.  The answer to your question is yes, there were underruns of services under the tasks orders that the government wanted to allow a time extension for the contractor to perform.  

    @C Culham I don't recall ever seeing or requiring this clause (52.216-22) be included in any order under the PSC IDIQ. It certainly would have made things easier if they had included it though.

    Probably opening a whole new can of worms with these responses, aren't I?


  5. Oh my, there are so many excellent responses and considerations. 

    @joel hoffman I obviously didn't give much thought to the context when drafting the question, I'll do better in the future.  Unfortunately I do not know the specific reason for the question I think the person that asked me was just phishing for information to see if there were any limitations and while I believe I new the general answer, your responses give me pause and make me rethink that.  I know there have been many previous instances at the PSC when no cost extensions were granted to eat up funds before expiration.  This has changed over time but I think that might be one of the reasons they asked me about it.  I also think the question was more about the resulting task orders under the IDIQ then the IDIQ itself.  

    I'll try to do better on future questions as @Vern Edwardsmentions in his response.

    I have a great deal of respect for the folks on this website.  I've been reviewing responses for years and have a number of folks that have informed me that there are a couple of folks i.e., @Vern Edwards that are masters and when they speak you better listen.  

    Many thanks for you time and responses.


  • Create New...