Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content Count

    2,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

2 Followers

About here_2_help

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SoCal
  • Interests
    No special interests, really. Kind of a jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none kind of person.

Recent Profile Visitors

36,976 profile views
  1. In any case, contingencies are not unallowable in all circumstances. Read 31.205-7. In many cases, contingencies must be priced into contracts. (Emphasis added.)
  2. There are consultants who specialize in this area. A google search might lead you to one in your local area. Suggest you pay a bit in return for peace of mind.
  3. You are building a prototype that is not a deliverable. Go ahead and acquire the used materials. You are fine. The government will appreciate the cost savings.
  4. Well, from my point of view, the contractor made a good faith estimate of the wages to be paid and the parties agreed on a contract price. Assuming what happens after that was a surprise to the contracting parties, I don't think there should be an issue. Of course, this assumes a firm, fixed-price contract. If the contract is cost-type, then the lower or higher wages get billed as being actual costs.
  5. Aren't JWOD prices set by the operation of law or regulation. (Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled)? If so, I'm not seeing the concern.
  6. This makes perfect sense to me. If the CO wants to "punish" the contractor, it should request a DCAA full-scope review of the contractor's estimating system, since obviously the controls to prevent errors did not function. The government should be able to rely on the contractor provide good estimates, and in this case it cannot.
  7. Well, then. Not sure how big the contractor is ... but if 252.215-7002 is in the contract, you have options. If the dollars are big enough, you have options. If the dollars are small, you have CPARS and FAPIIS.
  8. Sure seems to be a lot of lawyers in this thread, or people trying to imitate lawyers. Not pointing any fingers, as I am frequently accused of practicing law without the requisite guild admission. I've been waiting for the phrase "rebuttable presumption" to be used because it seems to be the next step in our legal analysis of the case. My point is that we were provided with a rather straightforward scenario. The government and contractor agreed on a price that was based on a mistake. The price needs to be adjusted to rectify that mistake. What's the easiest and most straightforward way to acomplish that objective? Is it (a) allege defective pricing and refer the matter to DCAA for quantum and to Legal for action, or (b) bilaterally modify the contract to reduce the price to what it would have been, had the mistake not been made? Everything else in this thread seems to be ... off point.
  9. If Company B is providing a comercial item and its consistent practice has been to sell that item at price and that price is not unreasonable, then yes. Otherwise, no. See 31.205-26(e).
  10. While like most of us I'm a bit in the dark about what really happened, I can easily envision a spreadsheet mistake where the decimal was in the wrong place. If the parties contracted on that basis, I would have a hard time thinking it was defective pricing. Also, to Retread's points, I agree with him. A contractor's obligation is to disclose cost or pricing data, then certify that what was disclosed is accurate, complete, and current. Period. What used to be called TINA is a disclosure requirement, not a use requirement. The contractor should want to move on from this situation quickly, as it calls into question the adequacy of its Estimating System. A bilateral mod based on mutual mistake would seem to be the fix. Of course, if there is some rule preventing a bilateral mod to correct a mutual mistake, I'm sure somebody will let me know.
  11. My memory is pinging me that there is either a class deviation or a proposed DFARS rule that waives the audit, or else leaves it to KO discretion based on perceived risk. That's all I have.
  12. Yeah, no. It's called "price analysis" and it's how the prime determines the price it is paying is fair & reasonable. CPSRs, you know.
  13. Interesting question. My first reaction is to say "no" because the prime would be responsible for making its own CIDs. On the other hand, I don't know what relevant clauses (if any) are in the prime's contract. I would definitely start by reading the prime contract. If the prime contractor does not have to submit certified cost or pricing data because there is adequate price competition, then neither do the subcontractors under that prime contract. However, that does not relieve the prime from determining that the subcontractors' prices are fair and reasonable, nor does it relieve the prime from complying with the clauses of its prime contract. Obviously, if the prime executed a CID then the subcontractor would be exempt from providing certified cost or pricing information; however, if the item were truly commercial then wouldn't you expect adequate price competition by definition?
  14. Yes, according to the PMO, as stated in the OP. The customer is unhappy ... that is normally considered to be a problem.
×
×
  • Create New...