Jump to content

FAR Fetched

Members
  • Posts

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FAR Fetched

  1. Thanks Don, definitely good to keep this under consideration moving forward.
  2. Good stuff Don. Question: Knowing this ambiguity exists, would simply writing payment terms in each Task Order proposal be sufficient or could those payment terms be superseded by FAR 52.232-5? If the payment terms in a Task Order proposal could be superseded by the FAR 52.232-5, what additional steps should be taken to avoid such a radical interpretation?
  3. You're only sharing one side of the story. What was the reason given by the individual/company that chose the Business Class flight?
  4. You keep going back to the offer was Unbalanced, based on what? If the winning contractor provided sufficient data to justify costs during the Base Year, while developing efficiencies and cost saving during the Option Years, why is that unbalanced? Especially since the Base Year was close to the final year of the last contract (2009). As for the quote (above), I highly doubt this proposal would have won because the Base Year was so far out of line with historical prices paid by the Government.
  5. Don All of the IDIQ FFPs I've done had the Task Order treated as individual orders (and payment terms); each Task Order issued in response to a Task Order proposal under that IDIQ, which clearly defines how payment is made. Agree with Vern's point that it may be possible, in example, an IDIQ FFP to construct a building and each Task Order being issued is to perform individual functions to complete that building (although and odd choice of a IDIQ FFP contract to complete such a task but?). I believe it could be interpreted as withholding final payment on all Task Orders in certain circumstances but I have a hard time believing this would come as a surprise to either the party (especially the Contractor). I'd love to hear how you came up with this one.
  6. I usually put language that states in summary, 'this agreement cannot be reassigned etc without mutual agreement.' I ran into this issue years ago when one of my subcontractors (very small company of -10 employees) was purchased by a large competitor. The sub wanted me to complete Novation paperwork to assign the agreement to new large company; I pointed out the clause in our agreement and stated I would not novate the agreement. The agreement was with the company (that no longer exisited) and therefore terminated the agreement (again, per the terms of the agreement) In this case, unless I had no issues with the novation, state that the agreement was with X entity and will be completed with X entity.
  7. Does your contract allow assignment?
  8. Don, agree and Vern thanks for pointing out the oversight on my part. To Don's point above, do you agree than that a CO can consider a late submission (if within the criteria described herein)? This post leads me to believe you don't think so.
  9. I've been wrong before, please show me what I'm missing here.
  10. In the clause above "...Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition... and received before 5PM..." I might be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it.
  11. 52.215-1 (ii)(A) Any proposal, modification, or revision, received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is ?late? and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and? ( 1 ) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or In the case of Sea Box, the proposal was received after 5PM so this consideration was not possible. This is an amendment received 30 mins after the due time yet long before the business day ended; the KO should accept it IMO.
  12. I'm assuming that his contract contains 52.217.9 ( c ) with "The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 5 years."
  13. You're in charge - Now What? Thomas J. Neff & James M. Citrin Great book for Managers, VPs and C-levels starting at new company.
  14. If the Contract has TS requirements, the Prime has to have a TS. The Prime can't delegate what doesn't have (TS work). See NISPOM http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/nispom/5220_22m2.pdf
  15. Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. How will you know that the T&M wrap rate only includes allowable costs? If the government views the subcontractor?s rate as the Prime's "cost", I guess you're fine. Who came up with the sub T&M rates? I'm assuming there is profit built into the sub's T&M rate and you're not giving the subs any portion of the "Fee" since they're using T&M rates. How does your contract define Cost?
  16. How can you say the CEO's total compensation is unreasonable without knowing his field of expertise, location or background? Let's say the CEO was COO at his last company and was paid 350k. He decides to start his own company, works billable full time at a rate that is in line with industry standard $84hr and receives the rest of his compensation from overhead to maintain an income of 350k. It's not paying him twice, it's one total compensation package. The KO should simply focus on the Rate for that job and determine if it's reasonable or not. Stop trying to do the company's accounting and do the job of the KO.
  17. Thank you. If you or anyone else finds examples of conflict, please share them. Also, I understand the relationship between the USC and FAR is complex; the what/how statement was not an attempt to oversimplify it. It?s merely an observation on my part of the USC stating requirements (e.g. contract competition requirements) and the FAR defining how those requirements are carried out.
  18. Vern (or others that would like to join the discussion) I would like to know some examples of when U.S.C. takes precedence over the FAR. I've always understood USC as the "What" and the CFR as the "How", I would be curious to see some examples of conflict. This quote is from one of my favorite threads; it's a completely different topic so I didn't want to bump the old thread.
  19. The work was directed by the Customer, why would you charge this to your overhead? I'd RFC the 20 hours and tell your PM not to start projects (or answer questions) out of scope without prior approval. I would also inquire into what was done in those 20 hours and ask if the PM provided written interpretation or clarification of some kind to the Customer for a few reasons: 1.) I'd use it to justify my RFC and 2.) I'd like to review it to see if there is any liability assumed by answering the Customer's question.
  20. I think you should start a new post, this thread is very old and your issue may get overlooked.
  21. I'm trying to get my brain around this, I understand you can't give the specifics of the contract but let me know if I'm way off on my example: Target cost = 2000 Target fee = 200 Split 70% Gov/30% Contractor If the final costs are higher than the target, say 2200, the Gov will pay 2000+200+0.7*(2200-2000) = 2340. Meaning the Contractor paid 2200 in costs and received 2340 as payment from Gov making the Contractor fee 140, which is lower than your target due to the "funding overrun". I think the modification is just stating the obvious, meaning you just went over target. I'm I way off here?
×
×
  • Create New...