Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Crazy KO

Members
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crazy KO

  1. My agency would like to take a "pro-active" step to request a waiver to the new DoD Final Rule "Service Contract Surveillance (DFARS Case 2008-D032), see http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-9884.htm. We are largely an R&D producing agency and our leadership is trying to reason that many of our contracts are not performance based and therefore, would not require a QASP. A tasker has gone out to write reasons why we should be granted a waiver. Has anyone got any compelling argument that would qualify? Appreciate any input
  2. OK, thanks for the information...haven't worked in the intelligence community for a while now and so I just didn't know what happened to FedTeDS. But formerfed is right...there could be several reasons why it was done that way, including a mistake (intentionally or not) by the agency. I say to the client...get in line, there's a lot of you who have been unjustly wronged. Good luck.
  3. It could very well be that said "unnamed government agency" is or has justified a waiver not to synopsize or make public the information. Also, it could be that the 217-8 clause was used to extend the final option for 6 months (as it legally can) which makes the date 30 June 2010. You say "the day this extension expires the website shows a NEW contract..." 30 June 2010 is not here yet. Am I taking this statement out of context? The agency may have competed it. You don't know that. You haven't given enough information. Ever hear of "FedTeDs?" Just a guess.
  4. I'd say Ashlyh got her money's worth on this. It was not only very informative but very entertaining! I'd like to know how Ashlyh actually made out on her effort...care to comment Ashlyh?
  5. This information will be brought to the next meeting to discuss how to go about performing this task. I'm sure it will have a big impact on which contracts we decide to finally convert...if any! Thanks!
  6. napolik Have they called you back yet? This issue is coming up again in my agency. Many KOs here are struggeling to understand how in the world we are to convert LOE T&M CR types over to FFP when the original contracts were competed. I said earlier that the decision to do these conversions were to be made only to SS 8(a)s...I was wrong. We are attempting to do as many as possible. Please keep us informed.
  7. My agency is attempting to do the same because of the new initiatives in the Obama administration. However, we have decided that it would only make sense to make these conversions if the contracts were sole sourced to 8(a)s. I raised this very questions a while back about converting contract types and was given guidance that doing so may be construed as a cardinal change because the the contractor would have to change the way they manage it from their end. Changing it from CR to FFP one would think it would be less of a management burdon.
  8. So many times changes are made to contracts that some folks argue is a cardinal change while others say no. When you do a FAR Search for "cardinal change" nothing is found. Is there a definition out there that will say clearly what the basic tenants are of a cardinal change. Is there a list of any kind out there?
  9. To DonAcquisition: I know there is a difference between these two fees. The IG specifically states "...base fee portion OF THE award fee..." Perhaps this is a typo, but I am reading it and thinking, auh-oh, I have the same problem on this other contract too. But again, this is a moot part of my problem (only added it for background information)... I do like Dwgerard's response...go with legal over F&R. Thanks to all who wrote...
  10. One more thing: I was not the KO at the time of award. I'm just the latest KO in a string of them who caught this hot potato!
  11. OK, to woops85: No AFEB or FDO were ever appointed. AFAR 5116.405-2((2)© Violation right there (this is an army activity BTW). To DonAcquisition: If I could share the report with you I would but here's exactly what the IG Says "There is no evidence that funds obligated at award accounted for the base fee portion of the award fee as required by DoD Financial Regulations (DoDFMR), VOL 3, Chpt 8, 080503". My take on that is an implication that award fee pool money must be made available at the time of award, or at least the amount of award that is to be available for evaluation period being funded. I hope I'm making sense. The report doesn't say that we're AD. My point of the post was to solicit feedback from folks who'd been a similar situations. I appreciate the replys and I do believe that the way forward is to negotiate a different outcome for the parties that is fair and reasonable and hopefully within legal bounds. Anyway, still open to suggestions here.
  12. No because the award fee earned was never known because the COR (evaluator/monitor) never evaluated the contractor's performance, ever. So, when the CS incrementally funded the labor CLINs, that was as far as it went. The draft AFP submitted by the contractor with its proposal (suggesting 6% of the estimated labor), having never been validated/approved by the KO, is where the whole dilema lies. I believe govt, remaining silent on the acceptance of the draft AFP, had a responsibility to make 6% of the labor funding available in a CLIN (award fee pool). Am I wrong to believe that award fee money must be made available at the time of award? Is it a myth? We just had an IG draft report come in for my activity and this very problem occured with another contract that was audited. The IG inspector made a finding that criticized us for this very thing. Is the IG wrong as well? There is a reference in the report to this requirement (I don't have the report with me at the present moment). I can post it on Monday. But the point is this: If we never incorporated the plan from the beginning and we're nearing the end of the last task order, isn't it a moot point to do anything with an award fee plan now? Isn't the purpose of an award fee used to incentivize? What's left now for the contractor to be incentivized? The follow on will go on an omnibus vehicle...unless they view that as a subcontracting opp. I think the only thing I can do at this point is negotiate a bilateral mod to change the contract type to a CPFF, remove the "base" fee and allow it to be absorbed somehow into a negotiated fixed fee. Does anyone disagree?
  13. Looking for anyone who can offer suggestions regarding my topic. I have a CPAF (IDIQ) bridge contract that was written for a a base of 6 months with a 6 month option (exercised), both of which have already expired. There were 4 task orders. The first 3 have expired and the 4th is still alive. The AFP was never incorporated, not were funds obligated to cover the award fee pool. The contractor continues to perform on the 4th task order which ends in March 2010. The CORs have never submitted a performance evaluation. My legal man says to bilaterally change the type of contract from CPAF to a CPFF and convert the base fee to a fixed fee to absorb it and negotiate a fixed fee which would make it "fair." I'm inclined to go with that.
×
×
  • Create New...