Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'changes'.

  • 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
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • 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
    • Section 809 Panel
  • Federal Contracting: A New Beginning
    • The Competition in Contracting Act

Blogs

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

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 6 results

  1. My agency has been tasked with transferring a CPFF LOE Term contract from another department. The contract was set up with a base and 9 option periods each with a level of effort and ceiling for a one year period of performance. I have a question concerning whether a restructuring of the future unexercised option periods would be allowed under a bi lateral modification or if adding options would trigger CICA. The rationale for considering such a change is that doing so would allow us to only exercise the amount of effort needed as we add work packages to the contract. In a way, making the contract operate more like an IDIQ. Under the current structure if we exercise an option that contains 10,000 labor hours for year 3 (how effort is measured), and we only use 5,000 of those hours during that period, the unused 5,000 hours of effort dies with the expiration of the option period. This contract would have been better suited as an IDIQ with task orders rather than a base with options but since we are taking the contract as a transfer, we would be limited to changes we can make by modification. My real question is this: If we do not exceed the total hours and dollars of the contract, can we redistribute our options by modification? Instead of 9 options, could we divide those options into 20 options? Note that we would be adding options but not adding any additional work or increasing the cost ceiling. It would essentially allow us to shift work to the future if we aren't ready to issue the work packages. Government anticipated issuing work packages earlier than they have. The work would still occur within the contract period of performance but not the original option period of performance. If we don't extend the option period of performance, we stand to run out of hours we can use before the end of the contract.
  2. I noticed in the new (interim) rule on contractor sick leave the following: (1) Contracting officers shall include the clause in bilateral modifications extending the contract when such modifications are individually or cumulatively longer than six months. (2) In accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3), contracting officers are strongly encouraged to include the clause in existing indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contracts, if the remaining ordering period extends at least six months and the amount of remaining work or number of orders expected is substantial. I read the 1.108(d)(3) and it says: Contracting officers may, at their discretion, include the changes in any existing contract with appropriate consideration. So I was wondering what would be considered "appropriate consideration"? I know "it depends" but I was looking for thoughts as applied to this specific situation. In order to comply with the new rule, presumably a contractor will incur more costs than originally planned. Those additional costs may or may not be allocated to the contract as a direct cost; more likely the change will result in an increase to contractor fringe benefits. I'm fairly confident that, to accept a bilateral change, the contractor will want to be made whole from it. Is that the essence of "appropriate consideration" or am I missing something? Thanks for your thoughts
  3. FYI, a recently published (redacted) ASBCA decision sustains a contractor's appeal of a COFD related to changes in cost accounting practice. The DACO "abused her discretion" by failing to strictly follow FAR 30.602, specifically the mandatory consideration as to whether the cost impact from the contractor's changes to cost accounting practices was material in amount. A very important decision for those dealing with CAS compliance. http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2016/58068 Raytheon Company, Space & Airborne Systems 8.9.16 (REDACTED VERSION).pdf
  4. My company is currently bidding a large contract. With two weeks prior to proposals due, the Contracting Office changed the NAICS code. Although, the set-aside remains the same, the NAICS code size standard changed from 1500 people to $25 Million, which takes us from a small business, to a large business. Needless to say, this causes much consternation due to the fact that we were swiftly removed from the competition. First and foremost, is this possible? Secondly, if it is, can I submit a claim to recoup expenses? I have a short fuse on this so please respond with your input shortly. Much appreciated!
  5. She is at it again!!! I have a change order negotiation scheduled in a couple of weeks to negotiate a change order to a FFP, SDVOSB set-aside, construction contract. My contracting officer is trying to dictate that I not bring anyone else to the negotiation including subcontractor representatives (even though they represent a majority of the scope of the change) and key project managers that have first-hand knowledge of the site conditions. I am confident that this move is an attempt to isolate, outnumber, and overwhelm me (they plan to have 6 people present including a SME and JAG rep.) and is far from operating in "good faith". Isn't it up to me who I have present at the negotiation? Please help me with some regulatory and/or FAR references that support my position (or prove me wrong with the same supporting the CO's position). Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...