Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Rodolfo

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Rodolfo

  • Rank
    New
  • Birthday 08/09/1949

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    ITALY

Recent Profile Visitors

3,919 profile views
  1. He might but the point is this: does the GVT have the right to re-evaluate using new documentation after an award? I know that it can T4C the contract, but not re-evaluate the past performance. Am I wrong?
  2. This is what at the end has happened. No company made a protest to the award to firm A. However, the requiring activity produced additional information about company A adverse past performance information that the KO was not aware of it when he made the award. The KO, based on this additional documentation received AFTER AWARD, has decided to re-evaluated the past performance of firm A from substantial to satisfactory and, being firm A no longer the best value for the Government, has T4C the contract with A. KO justified this stating that the government has the unilateral right right to c
  3. First of all, thank you for the replies. The contract was awarded 1 week ago. Firm A has absolutely not defrauded the GVT; she simply chose 5 recent and relevant projects where she had worked very well and was therefore sure of having good references. The RFQ stated that the KO had the right to obtain other information regarding the past performance of the quoters without limiting himself to the projects presented. However, he had the right but no obligation to do so. I am convinced that Company B can make a protest to either the agency or the GAO but what would the GAO or the a
  4. Can a KO, after he has awarded a contract to a firm, re-evaluate the firm's past performance based simply on the request of another firm? A service contract has awarded in writing to firm A. The RFQ provided for best value trade off. Past performance was one of the evaluation factors. RFQ requested that quoters provided a minimum of 3 maximum 5 past performance information of contracts similar to the service requested. Company A provided 5 recent and relevant contracts for an amount well above the requested service. Based on the information obtained by the customers of the 5 c
  5. Good morning and thank you. "It would appear from your description that the dispute concerns the assessment of liquidated damages and that this has already been filed as an appeal to the ASBCA". This is correct. "Why hasn't the BCA addressed the initial appeal?" First the Government requested an extension to prepare the rule4. Then, Government moved to dismiss the KTR appeal on the ground that it was not timely filed. KTR presented his arguments and is waiting for Board’s decision. "The Mod appears to offset the additional work/costs against the assessed LD's per the KO decision that
  6. BACKGROUND: On late April 2012, a KTR requested that the KO issued a final decision regarding his claim for additional work and the remission of the liquidated damages that the agency intended to assess. In spite of the KTR’s repeated written requests, the KO failed to issue a decision with a reasonable time (more than 8 months). The KTR then filed a notice of appeal to the ASBCA citing the KO failure to issue a decision. By action of the board, on late January 2013 the KO issued the final decision. With the final decision the KO denied the remission of liquidated damages; however approved the
  7. Good morning gentlemen, I'm assisting an Italian company in the preparation of an appeal against a contracting officer's final decision to assess liquidated damages in the amount of € 28,557.80 (less than $50,000). This is the first time I do this, and I must admit that I have a problem primarily due to the fact that the English is not my mother tongue. Therefore, I kindly ask if someone could answer/clarify the following questions offhandedly whenever possible. The questions refer to the rules of the ASBCA dated 11 May 2011 and the FILING GUIDANCE Rev. 25 July 2012. RULE 1. QUESTION 1 - Can
  8. Sorry if I ask these dummy questions. QUESTION 1 - If a contractor appeals a KO’s final decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the consultant's fee is reimbursable in case his appeal is sustained? The consultant must be an attorney or can be anyone? QUESTION 2- If the appeal is denied, shall the contractor reimburse the costs incurred by the government (e.g., the attorney's fee)? Thanks
  9. I agree but the ultimatum, given today, falls due tomorrow. If the Contractor does not accept, he will be required to install the missing outlets. It sounds unbelievable, but it is true. What can he do?
  10. Contractor had to renovate an existing building under a design/build contract. At the completion of the performance, Contracting Officer notified Contractor that he did not meet the standard required by the Scope of Work (corridors must have outlets ever; 6 meters and rooms/offices every 2.5 meters). Since Government had no longer need for the missing outlets, Contractor was notified that the Contracting Officer will deduct from the contract the cost for each outlet missing (44 outlets). Government estimated that the total amount to be deducted was euro 7.800,00. Contractor concurred with the
  11. No doubt about. KO was informed in writing. Government investigated the site and provided instructions on how to proceed. Two differing site conditions were category I, one category II. Thanks
  12. Thanks for your quick reply. I was afraid to hear what you just said. It makes sense; the mod was bilateral and probably the Government issued it in that knew that otherwise the clause could not be enforced. We have three (3) outstanding differing site conditions and we have proposed to the Government to trade them for a time extension. The amount claimed by us is greater than the amount of L.D the Government will assess; however, we?d prefer to loose some money rather than to look bad. Government stated that it is too late (completion date was 19 Dec 2011). I remember when I was a KO we have
  13. Good evening to everyone. I am writing from Italy because I have a very important question and I am sure somebody will be able to help me. The company I am working for has been awarded a construction contract for the installation of new heating lines. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE STATEMENT OF WORK DOES NOT REQUIRE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING HEATING LINES BUT ONLY THE INSTALLATION OF NEW LINES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE BARRACKS WILL NOT REMAIN W/OUT HEATING IN CASE OF A DELAY. The contract consists of a basic project and an option project. Each item has its own performance period. The cont
  14. Mr. Jacques, thank you very much for your help. You really helped us. There is no doubt that this is a lost battle. Our firm knows the rule of the "Interested Party" very well. In challenges of the evaluation of proposals and the awards of contracts, this generally means an offeror that would potentially be in line for the award if the protest were sustained. The agency does not confute our theory of the unbalanced offer, but its confuting argument is that we are not an interested party to protest the award because we would not be in line for award anyway if our protest were to be sustained. T
  15. Would you be kind to help me to understand if I am in the right path???? An agency issued on 30 December 2010 a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for maintenance of Electric Substations for a base year and two option years. On 7 February 2011 during a meeting had with the agency to find if the contract had been already awarded or not, the Contracting Officer handed to us a letter by which he informed us that award had been made to firm XXXX and that the total amount of award was of Euro 134.735,00. Since the FAR provision 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items incorporated in the full text und
×
×
  • Create New...