Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'orders'.



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 3 results

  1. I issued a request for pricing for a sole source single award IDIQ contract for services with a five year ordering period. In Section B the contract required fully burdened labor rates for each year of the contract to be used for T&M type orders and FFP type orders. The contractor refuses to provide fully burdened rates for FFP orders stating labor rates are not relevant to the FFP contract value and this approach places significant risk to the contractor. They also argue this approach is not aligned with FAR since they cannot provide a certificate of current cost and pricing data for applicable orders when using out year rates that may be different from actual current labor rates at the time of placing an order. I don't understand what the difference is between establishing labor rates for any contract type and establishing rates in a FPRA. Their position that the labor rates are not relevant to the total value is not totally sound to me as the established rates would be used against the contractor's proposed level of effort that would build to the total FFP value. All GSA Schedules have burdened rates used when developing FFP orders and I've also seen this done on BPAs. I offered to negotiate separate T&M rates from the FFP rates because to me the only difference is profit but this was still unsatisfactory. I don't understand why this is a hard pressed issue for the contractor. I think this is a standard practice to negotiate labor rates for up to five years as is done with GSA and DCMA. Is there any reason why it's not appropriate to negotiate fully burdened rates for FFP orders? Is the contractor's claim about certified cost and pricing data true?
  2. The answer to my question is paritally within the topic "GSA Schedule CAGE Code Challenge" but not quite on point. Many of the larger companues have more than one CAGE and DUNS combinations. Somwehere along the line I picked up the attititude that if the GSA Schedule was awarded to Willy Coyote Inc. with a CAGE of 12345 and DUNS of 222 333 444 any orders placed by Roadrunner AFB against that schedule had to match the aforementioned. Now that CPARS validates the CAGE on the GSA Schedule CAR/FPDS/NG with the CAGE on the order, we're having a few issues becuase the award cites to a different CAGE than what is in FPDS and the contract specialists are running into a hard stop error when they try to a CPAR. My suggestion is to modify the CAGE code on the order to match what is on the schedule. Once the order is in FPDS with the correct CAGE it will update CPARS and all should be good from that point on. For what ever reason many of our awards use different CAGE codes than are on the schedules. Before I get any 'Deer in the head lights looks' and the urge to pummel someone, can anyone point to a reference that says what CAGE & DUNS combinations to use on a GSA order? Commons sense doesn't count as a reference. Thanks,
  3. I have researched this topic and would like to confirm that the protest limitation of $10M on orders issued on an IDIQ still does not apply to contract vehicles covered by FAR subpart 8.4. The case law I am seeing is dated and current case law is not forthcoming with regard to the value of the orders. Thank you.
×