Jump to content

FFP


Contractor500

Recommended Posts

Hello - 

A customer states that there was a vacant position for a month on an FFP contract and therefore wants us to reduce the invoice by 11K. But, since it's FFP, do we actually need to reduce our invoice? That doesn't sound right at all. Is there a FAR close that supports either argument?

Thank you!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns out that the PWS for this contract states the following:

"The Government reserves the right to inspect or test services that have been tendered for acceptance. The Government may require performance of any nonconforming services at no increase in contract price. If performance will not correct the performance issue or is not possible, the Government may seek an equitable price reduction or contractual processes will begin to terminate the contract. Past performance history will be reported in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to reflect satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance". 

If we can prove that our current staff supported the PWS requirement (even without a dedicated FTE), is that a good strategy so that we can get the full amount? Does anyone suggest a better way or another FAR clause outside of FAR 16.202-1? 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Contractor500 said:

Hello -

Your two posts are lacking substance to allow for constructive responses.  By example - 

 

1 hour ago, Contractor500 said:

It turns out that the PWS for this contract states the following:

Are your sure this statement is in the PWS and not in an inspection clause in the contract?   

1 hour ago, Contractor500 said:

another FAR clause outside of FAR 16.202-1

This is not a FAR clause.   A FAR Clause begins with 52.   Example 52.212-4.

I suspect this thread will wind along but the quick view is what is the contract for - a completed project or for labor/time hours?   If completed project then your idea might fly but in all honestly there is a lot more that needs to be known about the contract before a better response can be provided.  

Maybe one place to start - Is FAR Clause 52.216-1 in your contract and if so what does it exactly say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Contractor500 said:

A customer states that there was a vacant position for a month on an FFP contract and therefore wants us to reduce the invoice by 11K.

Does the contract require you to provide a specified number of FTEs per month?  If so, what does your contract say about payment if you fail to provide the required number of FTEs?  What does the contract say is the basis upon which you are to bill the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Contractor500 said:

Hello - 

A customer states that there was a vacant position for a month on an FFP contract and therefore wants us to reduce the invoice by 11K. But, since it's FFP, do we actually need to reduce our invoice? That doesn't sound right at all. Is there a FAR close that supports either argument?

Thank you!

@Contractor500In order for anyone to answer that kind of question, they must be able to see the contract itself and have complete account of all pertinent facts. It is not possible to answer that kind of question without a lot more information than you have provided. C Culman has made that point.

I realize that you have posted to the "For Beginners Only" page, but surely you must know that there is no standard, off-the-cuff answer to your question. The answer depends on facts that you have not provided.

As a general principle, if you have failed to perform in strict accord with the terms of a firm-fixed-price contract, then the government is not obligated to pay for what it has not received. And if you bill the government for payment for something that you were obligated to deliver, but did not deliver, you could be accused of submitting a false claim.

Seek paid professional help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

You can probably find some evidence about how to go about invoicing for a firm fixed price contract in USCOFC case # 2020-1815 Pacific Coast Community v. US.

This case basically says that the government can have invoicing look more like labor hour even on firm fixed price contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...