mdtpham

See FAR 4.704 Calculation of retention periods. I would also recommend reading FAR 4.703 Policy.

I am curious about the retention periods contractors are required to retain documents. FAR Clause 52.215-2 states that records should be retained for 3 years past the final payment unless FAR 4.705-1 to 705-3 prescribes less. FAR 4.705 only requires 4 years retention for most documents but does not say when that 4 years begins so you assume it is based on the date of the document. This allows contractors to dispose of documents prior to the final payment and two years prior to when they may submit a claim on the cost. Any idea why the FAR allows this? Am I just missing something?

Since the auditors are running years behind in making indirect cost audits, we are running into big issues settling REAs, claims and getting a final close out of the actions because the contractor says the documnets were disposed of after 4 years. We plan to ask for an agency clause increasing the retention time (The FAR clause states "or for longer periods required by statute or by other clauses of this contract" to six years from our accepting thier indirect cost rate proposal.

I hope someone can provide me some background on why the FAR is the way it is and why I might not want to add such a clause.

dakrtgrl, I had 7 years of DOD 1102 experience, Level III certified, and was a GS13 when I started looking for private sector jobs earlier this year. I'm also in the DC area. It really depends on the company. Larger companies tend to offer slightly less. I was offered $120k at one small business consulting firm (this amount was before negotiations) with 100% medical and dental benefits. That said, they didn't win the contract that they thought they would so they had to cancel the job offer.

I ended up taking a GS14 with another federal agency. Less pay than the private sector, but more job security. :-)

Don-

Yes, I believe that there is a need for it. Are you envisioning something like the Contract Attorney's Deskbook?

An unsuccessful bidder must still file a protest within the protest period. Is this correct?

Yes.

Does the fact that no pre-award notice was provided have any impact on smallco's rights and options?

Only if Smallco was prejudiced (i.e., if the SBA actually found the awardee to be other than small). See Jensco Marine, Inc., B-278929.7, February 11, 1999:

However, such a failure to provide pre-award notice is only procedural in nature and we will not sustain a protest of an agency's failure to comply with this pre-award notification requirement absent prejudice to the protester. See FKW Inc. Sys.; ColeJon Mechanical Corp., B-235989, B-235989.2, Oct. 23, 1989, 89-2 CPD ¶ 370 at 7; Automation Management Consultants, Inc., B-231540, Aug. 12, 1988, 88-2 CPD ¶ 145 at 4-5.

mdtpham, are you indicating that the KO added the separate scope of the site work for the second, separate project to an existing contract for the first project, using the Changes Clause? That is very interesting.

Joel, no. There is a larger overall project. These two buildings are additions to the main (much bigger) project under the Changes clause. I guess what confused me was the KO's use of the word UCA. The office (that I'm working at now) considers an Unpriced Change Order a type of UCA even though the definition of a UCA under DFARS 217.7401(a)(3) clearly excludes Unpriced Change Orders.

I'm curious why an undefinitized contract action (letter contract) is necessary to award a contract for 2 siteworks and the first building. Please explain what the status of the design is for those features of work and why some other course of contracting action isn't feasible. Thanks.

Hey, as a minimum, you could award a fixed price contract for sitework on both sites then follow up with solicitations for the buildings. I'm relatively certain from what you said that the sitework could easily be split out from one or both designs. I could finalize notes on drawings within a day or two to denote the limits of the construction for a sitework only contract.

Sitework could include clearing and grading or it could also include site utilities. It's not rocket science to break out such work from an ongoing design.

Joel, I apologize for not responding to your question sooner. I haven't been on WIFCON for a while and didn't realize that there were additional responses/questions to the initial question.

I previously stated that my KO is leaning towards a UCA. After further discussion with my KO this week, what was actually meant is an Unpriced Change Order to get the work started since we already have a contract in place for the prime to perform the work. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks.

What about a separateLy funded option or CLIN in one contract?

joel, wouldn't we still need the design of the second building to be completed before the contractor can price its construction (either as a separately funded option or CLIN)?

Thanks, Vern!

We have a requirement to construct two buildings for two completely different uses on one piece of land. The buildings are not too far apart, so from an engineering standpoint, it would make sense to excavate the land at the same time for the construction of these two buildings to ensure that the excavation for one building does not undermine the area for the second building.

The design for one of the buildings is almost complete, while it would take several more months to complete the design of the second building. To ensure that we stay on schedule, excavation needs to begin in a few months.

Given that we have the design for one out of the two buildings and we know that we need to excavate the land for the construction of both buildings, what would be the best course of action to take (contractually)? (My KO is leaning towards a UCA to allow us to start excavation for both buildings and construction of one of the two buildings while we wait for the final design of the second building to definitize it.) Could excavation be considered a severable service?

I am with the DoD and am new to construction contracting, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Interestingly, the activity uses a requirements contract if the acquisition is sole source. They use the Rube Goldberg scheme if the acquisition is competitive. I don't know why. I'll see what I can find out.

Don, were you able to find out anything else about why things are done that way?

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I have really learned a lot on this forum. My CO asked me to research that question since he was not sure himself, but we ended up not taking the commercial route because he was able to locate another contract that we were able to order off of. Thanks again for a valuable lesson (and the fruitcake tip )!

The work is to replace dry-dock basin non-skid.

If work has to be accomplished IAW military specification, does that automatically make it a non-commercial item? Thanks in advance.

I don't see how that information would be prohibited from release. If you go to www.fbo.gov and search for an opportunity, there is even an "Interested Vendors List" tab that displays the names and contact information of the interested vendors.