Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'services'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 7 results

  1. Good afternoon. I am wondering if services can be added to a pre-existing mutiple award supply BPA, if those services are a necessary component of the supplies. According to FAR 37.102(a)(1), agencies can acquire services under a supply contract, but I am wondering if the same applies to a pre-existing BPA that does not have those services as part of the BPA. An example could be a BPA for software that requires training for new users, but the training was not included as part of the BPA itself.
  2. We are a telecommunications provider to the US Government and provide terrestrial data circuits to remote, and sometimes hostile, regions in the world. Under a 12-month contract, the Government requested a proposal for 12 months of service. The circuit is not considered accepted and billable until the Government performs its testing IAW the acceptance criteria. Given the regions we deliver service to, it is normal for circuit activation and testing to take three or more months from execution of a subcontract agreement to the activation and testing of the circuit. The salient points are: 1. The Government contracted for a terrestrial data circuit with a certain number of Megabits per second (Mbps) at a certain location specified in the SOW. 2. The period of performance was 5/1/15 – 4/30/16. 3. In Section B, the Unit specified was “EA,” and the quantity is “From 0.0000” “By 1.0000” to “To 1.0000” 4. The contract type was fixed price incentive in accordance with FAR Part 16.202. 5. We provided the Mbps to the locations specified in the contract beginning in November 2015. There are opinions internally whether we can bill the full amount based on service being provided for twelve months, even though the service was only accepted at month six or not. Terrestrial carriers (e.g. Verizon, Level3, etc.) typically require a 12 month commitment, so even though this firm price, severable service, extends beyond the PoP we will be billed for the full twelve months. The stronger and most likely reading of the contract is that the full amount of the annual service should not be charged unless the service was provided for the full 12-month period. However, reading the FAR suggests we may be able to bill for 12 months of service. Nonetheless, based on my experience with post hoc reviews by stakeholders OTHER THAN the contracting officer (such as inspectors general), a pro rated invoicing approach rather than invoicing the full amount, may be the correct interpretation. The contract does not state if it contemplated “immediate” commencement of performance, it is notable that the documents clearly provide that the period of performance was to be 5/1/15-4/30/16, which is exactly one year. (clause 152.211-705). In addition, the Statement of Work provides that the period of performance was to be “12 months from contract award.” Whether or not it is of note, there is no feasible way for service to commence immediately after order, and we are not billed by our subcontractor until the circuit is tested and accepted by the Government. The question then becomes whether “performance” in this context means (a) to begin to build the required communications capacity, or (b) to actually provide the required communications capacity. If “performance” requires only working on the development of the promised capacity, as opposed to actually providing the promised capacity as a service, then it appears that the fixed fee would have been owed. The contract does not offer any indication as to what it intended. I would also note that nothing in the contract appears to require a pro rating of the price to reflect the timing of the in-service dates (or acceptance dates). Nonetheless, there does not appear to be any language in the contract indicating that the customer can be charged for anything other than an operable network service that meets all of the speed and other technical parameters, and that this service is subject to a fixed price for a full 12-month service period. The task order has ended, but there is some discussion if we are entitled to invoice and be paid the fixed price established in the contract. The incentive monies are secondary, and will be determined and paid in accordance with the terms of the contract. The task order has ended, but there is some discussion if we are entitled to invoice and be paid the fixed price established in the contract. The incentive monies are secondary, and will be determined and paid in accordance with the terms of the contract. As a follow-on question: The Government awarded a single source follow-on contract for this service to begin 1 May 2016 – 30 April 2017. If the guidance is that we can bill for the full twelve months, should there be concern about billing, effectively, twice for the same service (trailing six months after PoP end, and first six months of follow-on) even though the same service is being provided under a different contract?
  3. I have a contract to provide cyber security monitoring and analysis which are severable services. I have a request to add another set of analysis, which would cost approximately 10% of the total contract value. My legal team is telling me that since these are severable services, any additional work is consdered out of scope and must be done with a J&A. The work is the same or similiar as what is currently being done and would not have changed the competition at time of award. My question is, can you never add work to a severable services contract and call it within scope because there is a cost associated with it? Can I also modify the option periods since they have not yet started? Thank you in advance for any information!
  4. I've been looking at 52.242-17, Government Delay of Work. The prescription states that the clause is optional when a fixed-price contract is contemplated for services, or for supplies that are commercial or modified-commercial items. It also states that the clause is not applicable if the contract otherwise specifically provides for an equitable adjustment because of the delay or interruption; e.g when the changes clause is applicable. However, the changes clause (52.243-1) doesn't address delay or interruption, only changes in 1) drawings, designs, or specs (when supplies are to specially manufactured for gov in accordance with drawings, designs or specs), 2) method of shipment or packing and 3) place of delivery. So, this leads me to believe if we don't have 52.242-17 on contract, then the disputes clause (52.233-1) applies with regard to any government delays. Which got me to thinking, if a fixed-price contract is contemplated for services (or supplies that are commercial or modified commercial), would 52.242-17 be preferable in the contract to address any government delays as opposed to being left with only the disputes clause? Assuming I've made the right connections here, there seem to pluses and minuses with each clause. What do you all think?
  5. We received the following mod from our prime contractor, which they say is a word-for-word flow-down of the prime contract mod. I understand the Government can cut our funding anytime, but can they really direct which days of the week we work? For example, we have one employee who has a two-week vacation planned in September, but that time will not go toward her 20% cut because it's not only on Friday. I have tried to research the FAR about this, and I have not been able to find anything. I appreciate any FAR or other law references you can provide to help me understand how this is ok (or not). Thanks. 12.0 STATEMENT OF WORK ADDENDUM Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, in the event that the Government reduces operations pursuant to a furlough of civilian employees of the Department of Defense, the level of effort for this contract or task order established in SEA 5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT (DEC 2000) shall be reduced for the tenure of the civilian furlough. The level of effort for this contract or task order during the civilian furlough period shall be expended at an average rate of 2346 (80% of 2932) hours per week. The contractor is not required to remain on standby and should take every effort to minimize its overhead costs during the reduction. At the conclusion of the civilian furlough period, the level of effort will revert to the prior rate. The contractor will not be required to immediately revert to the prior level of effort, but rather will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to revert to the prior rate. During the civilian furlough period, unless otherwise authorized by the contracting officer, the work schedule will consist of an 8-hour work day Monday through Thursday. Therefore, Friday will not be part of the work schedule. At the conclusion of the civilian furlough period, the work schedule will revert to the prior established schedule, if any. This revision to the normal work week is not the result of an Executive Order or an administrative leave determination.
  6. A contract was awarded for a base period of 6 months and an option period of 6 months for severable services. The 52.217-8 clause was included. After the base period ended, the 52.217-8 clause was used for an extension of 3 months with no other changes to the contract, the -8 clause was used again to extend for an additional month with no other changes to the contract. The 6 month option was exercised and five months into the performance period of the option, a scope change was required which caused the contractor to purchase additional supplies and required additional lead time and so the Changes Clause (52.243-1 Alternate II) was used for the within scope change and the contractor was granted an extension of 3 months. The 3 month extension has ended and we would like to use the -8 clause again for 2 months (the -8 clause was previously used as an authority for a total of 4 months out of the 6 allowed). Did the use of the Changes clause negate any time being left on the -8 clause or is an extension of 2 months still permitted using the -8 clause?
  7. Good day! My question is about selecting the correct labor law to apply to a subcontractor. If the subcontractor is performing a "service" on a DBA construction site, employs no laborers, mechanics, apprentices, trainees or helpers, is the work subject to the Service Contract Act or Davis Bacon Act? Anxiously awaiting your response!
×