Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'delivery order'.
Found 2 results
I have an Non-Appropriated Purchasing Agreement (NPA) for Title II Services with the following Period of Performance: Option Year 2: 20 July 2015 through 19 July 2016 Option Year 3: 20 July 2016 through 19 July 2017 There will be a delivery order awarded against the NPA within the next few weeks, so we will be using the option year 2 pricing. The contractor is trying to incorporated "escalation pricing" in his proposal so when the option is exercised on the NPA (next month), the pricing for the order will "automatically" go into affect the same day. The period of performance on the order for Title II Services will be 365 days. The NAFI has already informed the contractor that the order will only incorporate Option Year 2 pricing for the entire duration of the 356 days and will not be changed unless there is a change to the current period of performance (ie. an extension to the order extending it past the 365 days). The contractor is arguing that other delivery orders were issued using this escalated pricing method with other agencies. Is there a statue stating an order placed against an NPA or IDIQ will need to maintain the current base or option year pricing throughout the life of the order?
ShaunaMSACM posted a topic in Contract AdministrationScenario: Lower-tier subcontractor performing on a DO issued under the restricted suite of an IDIQ MATOC for maintenance and services. The DO contained 2 types of CLINS: 1. FFP (for preventative maintenance) and 2. T&M (for corrective maintenance). Prime contractor (Company A) submitted hourly labor rates to Govt.; the resulting award contained the hourly rates but no details are given regarding whether the rates for each labor category are for the prime or its subs. NOTE: lower-tier sub was not involved with prime contract in any capacity until well after the award. As such, it was unable to participate in the hourly rate discussions/negotiations between the prime and first-tier sub. In addition, the lower-tier sub was not given any information about said discussions/negotiations. First-tier sub to Company A issued subcontract to lower-tier sub for both CLINs. Beforehand, lower-tier sub quoted its GSA FSS contract hourly rates to first-tier sub; the first-tier sub accepted said rates. Lower-tier sub hourly rates accepted by first-tier sub were was much as $14.00/hr higher than those in listed Company A's prime contract. To the best of this writer's knowledge, the rates in Company A's prime contract had not been disclosed to the lower-tier sub prior to it submitting its proposal to, or receiving its subcontract from, the first-tier sub. CAVEAT: the lower-tier sub is also a contract holder under the same MATOC (lower-tier sub's award was in the unrestricted suite) and most likely has the same KO administering its contract as Company A. The lower-tier sub's hourly rates negotiated with (and accepted by) the Govt. on its award are the same as above - its GSA FSS contract hourly rates. The Govt. is definitely aware the lower-tier sub is also performing under Company A's award as a lower-tier sub. Issue: Lower-tier sub performed multiple CLIN 2 corrective maintenance services over several months, during which time it invoiced its labor at the $14.00/hour higher rate. Govt. accepted all invoices and lower-tier sub was paid at the higher rate. During this time, the lower-tier sub is still unaware of Company A's negotiated rates. Out of the blue, the Govt. decides it no longer wants to pay the lower-tier sub's higher rates and directs Company A to pay the lower-tier subs at Company A's lower negotiated rate. Argument: Lower-tier sub is well aware of the regulations governing T&M work and concurs it must abide by the rates in Company A's contract. The lower-tier sub does, however, take issue with the Govt. changing its position "midstream" on the hourly rates. Does the lower-tier sub have any valid arguments to make? If so, what are they?