Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'payment'.
Found 4 results
AcqKMat posted a topic in Contract AdministrationHere's my dilemma. My COR has been approving invoices without withholding because he claims the Contractor was doing successful in his progress. We are now at the end of the contract and he has identified several deficiencies that he believes the contractor owes us money. He wants to withhold further payments from the contractor greater than the 10% retainage. So in short, we have ~$300K left on the contract and he doesn't want to pay them because he overpaid them in other past payments. While I know FAR Part 33 outlines how the Government can issue a claim, is there anywhere that I can not pay them this amount? I mean, FAR 32.103 outlines progress payments for construction contracts but I think logically, it would make sense to withhold payment. However, the issue I have is that there was different subs whose payments are being withheld simply because we didn't properly withhold it from the subs who's work was not sufficient. Any thoughts?
All, I'd like to get your opinion on a disagreement we are having with one of our DCMA folks. We have been performing under a CPFF contract since 1/1/14 which includes the 52.216-8 clause, and our KO has not withheld any payment of fee to date. DCAA recently audited the contract records, and deferred the question to DCMA on whether or not things have been handled appropriately. Our DCMA POC's answer was simply an e-mail stating "15% fee withhold is mandatory. The contractor has overbilled and no more billing is permitted. It is mandatory, that 15% of the fixed fee be withheld until such time as the Contractor's 2014 Incurred cost proposal is deemed adequate." I contacted the DCMA POC and stated that I don't disagree that the KO should withhold payment up to the 15% or $100K as the FAR clause indicates, but I contested the fact that he is claiming that "contractor has over billed and no more billing is permitted", stating that the onus is on the KO to withhold payment rather than for us to withhold billings (as an aside, our KO expressly told us not to do so). Am I crazy here? In the past, we automatically retained 15% on all CPFF jobs we had which contained that clause, and our DCAA auditors dinged us for doing that and our KOs got angry - it's like we can't win! Please let me know what you think. Thanks for the help!
huwen119 posted a topic in Contract AdministrationAll, I ran into a problem on payment/invoicing. Please find below contract facts: (1) Service contract awarded under GSA MAS as FFP type (small contract <$1M/year), 1 base year plus 4 option years, currently on base year. (2) No labor hours specified on the contract; deliverables are straight forward: a monthly status report and a couple of other reports. (3) Invoices shall be submitted per FAR252.212-4(g) (4) The PoP starts one day after the contract was awarded; contract requires all personnel be available when PoP Start. Due to security requirements, it is impossible to staff all personnel when PoP starts, but my firm staffed all personnel in a month and during this time, all deliverables have been made and all reports have been turned in on time. The problem: Our invoices have been rejected by KO due to insufficient staffing. My questions are: (1) this is a FFP type contract. Should the payment be in lump-sum as long as all deliverables are met? (2) If the government refuses to pay, do we (contractor) have right to suspend our operation/on-site personnel? (3) Any other options can we take? Such as file a claim or REA? Thanks very much!
ShaunaMSACM posted a topic in Subcontracts & Subcontract ManagementContract Type: Design Build - FFP Scenario: First tier subcontractor to prime contractor refuses to submit its invoices in the schedule of values format required by the prime contract. Background: 1. The prime contractor incorporated the schedule of values invoicing requirement into the subcontract; subcontractor concurred and signed subcontract. 2. Subcontractor attempts to "front load" charges into its invoices and demands prime contractor pay subcontractor well in advance of what prime can bill government for said charges under the required schedule of values. 3. Prime contractor contacts subcontractor to discuss on multiple occasions; in each discussion, subcontractor advises it will not comply with required invoice format. 4. Prime contractor notifies the KO of the situation and its intent to withhold subcontractor payment in accordance with the procedures set forth in 52.232-27(e). 5. Prime contractor issues a formal subcontractor withholding notice conforming to the requirements of 52.232-27(g). 6. In reply, subcontractor notifies prime contractor to "pound sand" and continues in its refusal to submit invoices in the schedule of values format required. 7. Prime contractor notifies KO weekly of status of situation and continues (on a nearly daily basis) in its attempts to get the subcontractor to submit a proper invoice. Question: Is the prime contractor required to submit subsequent subcontractor withholding notices until the situation is resolved or will prime's actions in Item 7 above suffice? If additional notices are required, is there a specific frequency required?