Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

76 profile views
  1. Interesting, Vern. The issue is still lingering with IAP, but I don't know that we'll get a final answer on this particular issue, because they were arguing DFARS 215.306, vice FAR 15.306.
  2. Based on what you cited, I'd say no. Sounds remarkably similar to the circumstances in the recent IAP Worldwide Services case from earlier this year.
  3. Your question is fairly broad. You could use a single solicitation and then make multiple awards for specific classes of supplies or services, resulting in several multiple award contracts (MACs) that are commodity or service based. If your focus is really on small business, then you could use a partial set-aside or a reserve. FAR 19.501(a)(1) generally discusses partial or full small business set-asides, and 19.501(a)(2) generally discusses small business reserves. 19.504(c) provides a little more info on placing orders under reserves. Of course, FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) provides an exception to the fair opportunity process by allowing set-asides when placing orders. Since you appear to be concerned about determining the smaller firms responsible at the time of award of the IDIQ, the establishment of a reserve may be the better course of action if these firms are actually small businesses for the commodity or service required. If the small business firms had a lower ordering threshold, then presumably they would not need the same financial, technical and production capabilities as the unrestricted firms. The reserve could state that all orders under X quantity, X dollar amount, or specific class of supply or service would be offered to only small business awardees. If no acceptable proposals were received (or market research determined there would be inadequate competition), then the opportunity would be open to all offerors. If this is scratching your itch, then we can discuss more. If I’m on the wrong track I’ll just shut up and wait for others to try to help you.
  4. Looks like the Agency did exactly that in B-420497 CGS-ASP Security JV LLC. --- "In addition the RFP included another provision that provided as follows: Offerors, including any offeror organized as a joint venture, must have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission and throughout the procurement process. Any offeror whose registration is not active in SAM at the time of proposal submission will be excluded from the process and their proposals will not be evaluated. RFP at 89. (bold in original, italics supplied)" (...) "Here, the RFP was explicit that an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission was required as a precondition of proposal evaluation."
  5. By price breakdown, I assume you mean the breakdown of the individual units prices (i.e. direct labor, overhead, G&A, and Profit) vice the break-out of unit pricing by position. I also assume that this is a severable service, so an option year would be included. I believe that you can fulfill the requirements of FAR 22.1103 and 15.404-1(g) without a price breakdown. Since the compensation plan is required by the provision FAR 52.222-46, I don't consider that to be "other than cost or pricing data."
  6. After I read the case, I went looking for the Article, and also found it on WIFCON.
  7. Admittedly, I’ve never worked for GSA and even my experience at placing orders under schedules is not very vast. But my take on the requirements that you posted (assuming I were a contractor) would be to develop the most competitive SCLS rates, taking into consideration the multiple WDs as well as the potential to run across CBAs with high rates. If the situation arose where the work was not covered by the Act, then offering or negotiating lower rates may then be possible.
  8. Vern: I’ll take the bait, realizing this is a David vs. Goliath matchup. I agree that when 52.222-41 is incorporated at the IDIQ level, it applies to all task orders. But I’m not sure I agree that the test of the principle purpose is not performed at the task order level. The definition of Contract in Part 2 does include “job order or task letters issued under basic ordering agreements.” An IDIQ does not order any services that are subject to the act, but the task orders do. 52.222-41(b) reads in part “This clause does not apply to contracts or subcontracts administratively exempted by the Secretary of Labor or exempted by 41 U.S.C. 6702, as interpreted in Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 4.” To say that all orders are subject to 52.222-41 and employees must be compensated by the relevant wage determination would seem to render the sentence, quoted above, as irrelevant. By that logic, it would seem that even an order under $2,500 would then be subject to the wage determinations. Yes, I do agree your solution is plausible.
  9. C Culham: Respectfully, your first post included a link to the DOL Field Operations Handbook Chapter 14. One of the exemptions and exclusions listed at 14c07, states: “…For example, a contract for professional services performed essentially by bona fide professional employees, with the use of service employees being only a minor factor in contract performance, is not covered by the SCA...” Paragraph (b) of that section mentions a 10 to 20 percent guideline to determine whether there is more than a minor use of service employees. As an example, if I were performing a study which ordered 900 hours of engineering services, and the report required 100 hours of a clerk-typist; it seems as though the clerk-typist would be exempt from SCLS. But if that same study required 750 hours of engineering services and 250 hours of a clerk typist, then clerk-typist would not be exempt. Agree... disagree?
  10. I wanted to say thanks to those who provided their input. The info that Vern provided regarding M.A. Mortenson Co., ASBCA 40750, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28623 and the link he provided that led to a discussion of Appeal of—Watts Constructors, LLC, 2015 WL 566315, ASBCA NO. 59602 (https://www.floridaconstructionlegalupdates.com/government-contracting-and-treating-extended-field-overhead-as-a-direct-or-indirect-cost/) were helpful in formulating my planned approach. Perhaps, once the issue is resolved, I'll post the results in the "what happened" forum.
  11. ji20874 It is a competitively awarded fixed price contract. I sent them a request for proposal for the time and cost impacts to incorporate the revised drawings into the contract and have received their proposal; which now attempts to charge the full delay as a daily rate (per diem basis), vice the percentage method previously used on this (and other) contracts.
  12. Good morning Vern and thanks for the feedback. I'm in a forward deployed scenario, so I don't have my copy of Administration of Government Contracts with me. But if that section discusses the Eichleay formula, this case is not about unabsorbed home office overhead. These are cost that have only one single cost objective, which is the contract in question.
  13. I’ll apologize up front for the long post, but I’m trying to follow the spirit of ji20874’s tag line: A problem clearly stated is a problem half solved. FAR 31.105(d)(3) allows contractors to treat the cost of managing (“superintendence, timekeeping and clerical work, engineering, utility costs, supplies, material handling, restoration and cleanup, etc.”) a construction contract as either a direct or indirect cost; provided the practice is in accordance with the contractor’s established and consistently followed cost accounting practices. In my agency, contractors that choose to treat these costs as indirect divide the estimated management costs for the contract by the estimated cost of construction for the contract, to develop an indirect rate that my agency calls field office overhead. These contractors then apply the field office overhead rate to any self-performed work, regardless of whether or not the change requires additional time to complete the contract. In cases where the contract time is not extended, the contractor is essentially banking the field overhead costs. When a change does require an extension of time, but no self-performed cost, the contractor receives no additional compensation for its management costs (except for previous/future banked costs). In this particular case, some of the drawings under a design bid build contract were defective. The project was not suspended, as other work was able to continue, but the critical path and completion date were impacted and an extension of time would be due just because of the delay in providing the revised drawings. There will be a cost to implement the corrected drawings, and the change will require additional time to complete. The contractor realizes that their field overhead percentage will not cover their management cost for the entire extension that will be required and now wants to charge these costs as direct. My question is whether the required consistency specified by FAR 31.105(d)(3) also applies to Government delay. I am thinking I should have the contractor follow their established practice of billing the field office overhead for the changed work as indirect, and submit a separate REA for the Government delay, and allow those costs to be treated as direct (actuals).
  14. Hi Vern. It was this line in the original post that caught my attention: The contractor agrees to perform for another year but asks for a new Fixed Fee and additional cost in addition to the 20% remaining from the old period of performance. I think these services are severable based on the nature of the work and the quarterly reports. Depending on the appropriation, it could be a problem to use the old appropriation for what we all pretty much agree is new work.
  15. Tzarina, have you considered whether the construction oversight services are severable or non-severable?
  • Create New...