Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Üzgünüm maka. Okumadan ne söyleyeceklerini bilmiyorum. 

Do you know about the evaluation points of the 13-item letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, makamachine said:

Do you know about the evaluation points of the 13-item letter?

No sir, sorry. Not without reading it. If you would trust me, you could send me a photo copy In the personal messenger feature in this Forum and I would be willing to read it and comment back to you. Then I can delete it from my messages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

maka, unfortunately, I don’t understand the Turkish language. I am sorry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

No sir, sorry. Not without reading it. If you would trust me, you could send me a photo copy In the personal messenger feature in this Forum and I would be willing to read it and comment back to you. Then I can delete it from my messages. 

Mr. Joel. Of course, I trust 

maka machine.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, makamachine said:

Mr. Joel. Of course, I trust 

maka machine.pdf 281.52 kB · 0 downloads

Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?  

Mr Joel Mail from the official account of DIBBS. not suspicious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, makamachine said:

Mr Joel Mail from the official account of DIBBS. not suspicious.

OK, maybe someone here can enlighten us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

maka, please clarify :

1) are you presently registered in Dibbs?

2) did you bid on some supplies in response to a quote or request for proposal in Dibbs?

3) did you win the bid to supply the item or items?  Did the government order the item from you through Dibbs?

Thanks. 

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel, be careful -- I know there are rules about employees and former employees representing private parties before federal agencies.  You're retired so you might be free to do so, but you wrote "if I was still working" and the hair on my neck stood up, so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Joel, be careful -- I know there are rules about employees and former employees representing private parties before federal agencies.  You're retired so you might be free to do so, but you wrote "if I was still working" and the hair on my neck stood up, so to speak.

Concern understood. He is asking for information concerning the letter from DIBBS. In addition he is having trouble communicating with the KO and the “clerk”. I would have had no qualms about facilitating communications between the parties, not acting as an advocate or representative for their contractor. The USACE was a pioneer in developing and facilitating Partnering processes between stakeholders and our contractors. In fact, it is USACE policy that we are to offer to partner with every contractor.

By the way, ji, I was taught that it is improper for a government employee to urge or to coach a contractor to submit a claim against the US Government,  especially for matters that the employee is unfamiliar with.

We are trying to determine the facts of this situation. Right now all we know is that maka supplied something to somebody and invoiced for it. Possibly through a DIBBS bidding process.

There are no rules preventing a former civil service employee from representing a contractor before other federal agencies with no direct relationship to their former job.

There are numerous friends of mine, as well as several former government employees here on the WIFCON Forum,  who are paid advisors and advise and/or represent contractors before federal agencies.

Edited by joel hoffman
Elaborated
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, makamachine said:

Mr. Joel. Of course, I trust 

maka machine.pdf 281.52 kB · 4 downloads

Ask DLA for a valid OMB Control Number for the requested collection of information. Remind them that, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.6, they may not penalize you for your failure to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. They probably won't know what hit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 6:50 AM, ji20874 said:

DFAS Hotline is a wrong answer, I think.

The right answer is to file a claim amenable to the contract's Disputes clause.

Reminding them of their right to file a claim is ok. Telling them “to file a claim” - without even knowing the facts of the problem - is improper for a federal employee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Well, Joel, it has been ninety days already and following your course might add ninety more days and still no payment.

The Disputes clause exists for this purpose.

The check-in-the-shield emblem in one of the original poster's comments makes me maka is using an internet translator, so there may be a language barrier.  Maka is probably in Turkey.  A claim is a good approach, but I suppose it will have to be written in English and it will have to state the facts.  We don't know any facts yet.

 

This goes beyond reminding a contractor of their right to submit a claim. When a current federal employee advises that “a claim is a good approach”, that is encouraging a contractor to submit a claim.

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to post
Share on other sites

maka, the letter from the DIBBS Team lead began with:

Quote

 

Subject: DLA Internet Bid Board System Account Has Been Locked

As previously indicated we are seeking to validate your business operation before we grant access to the DLA automated procurement process, which in order to maintain its efficiency and economy relies on contractors that require little contract oversight or administration.

 

maka, what were you previously told by DLA regarding your DIBBS account? 

I don't understand how you apparently responded to a Request for a Proposal or for a quote or for a bid in DIBBS; then you were issued an order; then you provided the item or items; then you were locked out of the system before you were paid. 

The letter ends with this:

Quote

If the package received does not meet these guidelines listed in this letter, it will be rejected and the account will remain indefinitely locked.

Failure to provide the required information within 90 days of receipt of this letter will result in the indefinite suspension of the DIBBS account associated with your CAGE Code. DLA will notify your company, within 60 days of receipt of the information, of the outcome of the review. 

received does not meet these guidelines listed in this letter, it will be rejected and the account will remain indefinitely locked.

Failure to provide the required information within 90 days of receipt of this letter will result in the indefinite suspension of the DIBBS account associated with your CAGE Code. DLA will notify your company, within 60 days of receipt of the information, of the outcome of the review. 

 

I'm not familiar with this system.  However,  it would seem very strange to be locked out of a system after filling an order and then DLA delays payment for the completed order until well after you provide all sorts of information to them.

maka, did the DIBBS team identify problems with your existing DIBBS account that would delay or prevent payment for an existing, completed order?

maka are you in the process of providing the requested information?

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Advising that a claim is a good approach is encouraging a contractor to submit a claim.

I never advised that a claim is a good approach -- that is your own erroneous characterization.  Filing a claim is a right of the contractor, and the Disputes clause exists for this purpose.  When a contractor is not paid under a contract, and has already spent 90 days to resolve the problem but to no avail, filing a claim is a reasonable step and an honorable step.  It is entirely fair for a federal employee to remind a contractor of its rights under the contract, especially in a setting such as this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

I never advised that a claim is a good approach -- that is your own erroneous characterization.  Filing a claim is a right of the contractor, and the Disputes clause exists for this purpose.  When a contractor is not paid under a contract, and has already spent 90 days to resolve the problem but to no avail, filing a claim is a reasonable step and an honorable step.  It is entirely fair for a federal employee to remind a contractor of its rights under the contract, especially in a setting such as this.  

You said “A claim is a good approach”.

You also said “We don't know any facts yet.” Which is Correct and is why it is improper to suggest that a claim is a good approach at this point. You weren’t reminding maka of his right to file a claim. “You have the right to file a claim” is a reminder.

By the way, from the info that maka provided, it appears that the unpaid amount is less than $300. It would cost more than that to prepare a claim and a whole lot more than that to address the claim. And if the government is delinquent in payment, would the payment be subject to interest under prompt payment provisions?

So, we disagree.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?  

Okay so here is my insight.....

Maka has provided evidence of proof of an actual purchase order being issued (SPE5E9-20-V-2697) and proof of delivery of an item;  followed by a reference document that the pruchase order is in the DLA payment system for payment.   Maka has also provided a letter regarding DIBBS that suggests the delay for payment is because of a DIBBS account not being appropriately set up.

I take this information as fact  as maka has willingly provided it.

It is my insight that payment is not related to DIBBS.   DIBBS (DLA Internet BId Board System) is for accessing and bidding on items.  Maka got a PO and the purchase order is readily available as maka has provided.   DIBBS is not a payment system with payment made through another system by DLA. 

So there are two issues that maka has posted about - An item delivered for which the government has not paid for and registration in DIBBS.

Now I not familiar with the processes of DLA however my suggestions are as follows -

For the contract (actually a stand alone purchase order)  SPE5E9-20-V-2697 maka could just continue to wait for some explanation and help with regard to getting the payment.   Or maka could file a claim pursuant FAR clause 52.233-1 which should be in the purchase order either as a stand alone clause or as paragraph called "Disputes" in clause 52.212-4 if the purchase order was issued as a commercial item purchase.  I suggest that converting the outstanding invoice to a claim as it is my view that the CO with a claim in hand could/should circumvent the payment system and make the payment.  The government received the item and  maka is rightfully due the payment.

As to maka fixing the DIBBS account I would suggest that DLA has a help center and that would be my first contact for assistance.    https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/SmallBusiness/DIBBS Pocket Guide.pdf 

Further as we all know such help centers are sometimes confusing so as an alternative there is lots of information on the internet regarding DIBBS including private entities that will help firms on their registration and maintenance of their account.  Suggested search would be using this as the search question - "Setting up my DIBBS account + overseas contractor". 

Another source is the Association of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers website.  While a Procurement Technical Assistance Center is not located in Europe their website webpage on doing business with DLA may be helpful and is found here - https://www.aptac-us.org/selling-to-dla/

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Okay so here is my insight.....

Maka has provided evidence of proof of an actual purchase order being issued (SPE5E9-20-V-2697) and proof of delivery of an item;  followed by a reference document that the pruchase order is in the DLA payment system for payment.   Maka has also provided a letter regarding DIBBS that suggests the delay for payment is because of a DIBBS account not being appropriately set up.

I take this information as fact  as maka has willingly provided it.

It is my insight that payment is not related to DIBBS.   DIBBS (DLA Internet BId Board System) is for accessing and bidding on items.  Maka lgot a PO and the pruchase order is readliy available as maka has provided.   DIBBS is not a payment system with payment made through another system by DLA. 

So there are two issues that maka has posted about - An item delivered for which the government has not paid for and registration in DIBBS.

Now I not familiar with the processes of DLA however my suggestions are as follows -

For the contract (actually a stand alone purchase order)  SPE5E9-20-V-2697 maka could just continue to wait for some explanation and help with regard to getting the payment.   Or maka could file a claim pursuant FAR clause 52.233-1 which should be in the purchase order either as a stand alone clause or as paragraph called "Disputes" in clause 52.212-4 if the purchase order was issued as a commercial item purchase.  I suggest that converting the outstanding invoice to a claim as it is my view that the CO with a claim in hand could/should circumvent the payment system and make the payment.  The government received the item and  maka is rightfully due the payment.

As to maka fixing the DIBBS account I would suggest that DLA has a help center and that would be my first contact for assistance.    https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/SmallBusiness/DIBBS Pocket Guide.pdf 

Further as we all know such help centers are sometimes confusing so as an alternative there is lots of information on the internet regarding DIBBS including private entities that will help firms on their registration and maintenance of their account.  Suggested search would be using this as the search question - "Setting up my DIBBS account + overseas contractor". 

Another source is the Association of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers website.  While a Procurement Technical Assistance Center is not located in Europe their website webpage on doing business with DLA may be helpful and is found here - https://www.aptac-us.org/selling-to-dla/

 

 

 

Thanks, Carl.

The unpaid invoice is for $294. I’ve asked maka what the DIBBS office previously told him prior to the letter he shared. Don’t understand why payment would be related to that action but I don’t know much about DIBBS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Reminding them of their right to file a claim is ok. Telling them “to file a claim” - without even knowing the facts of the problem - is improper for a federal employee.

Always an interesting debate of which I have done my own research and wonder where it the conglomeration of ethics rules this is a fact rather than a myth.....

 https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Resources/Ethics+Training+Tools+and+Templates 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel, You're right -- I did say a claim is a good approach.  And in the context that I said it, it is.  There may be better approaches, but none of them have worked yet.  I don't think your chasing the DIBBS rabbit will result in a payment anytime soon, but I wish you well.

This prior WIFCOM thread might be helpful to some:

 

Edited by ji20874
Added link to earlier WIFCON thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The invoice is for $294.  I wonder how much money the government is spending trying to get this resolved.  I am sure it is many times the amount of the invoice.  If the ordering officer knows that the amount is due, someone should figure out a way to get it paid, perhaps through an imprest fund or credit card.  This seems a case of the government being penny wise and pound foolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank the friends who sent valuable answers to their topics. I have to explain about the issues I have opened. I registered my company in DIBBS.My company is located in Turkey. (OCONUS) There is no problem with my bidding on the requests. In total, 10 contracts ($22.000 )were signed with DLA. I completed the manufacturing to deliver. I sent 1 product to America and 1 product to South Korea. The product I sent to America was received by DLA. I was scheduled to pay April 23, 2020. This letter came before my product to South Korea was delivered. In South Korea, my product went to waste. My DIBBS account was closed and all my contracts were canceled. I was given time to respond to the letter. I received a letter when I asked why my account was closed before I received a letter.Then I answered the letter and recently received an answer to the letter and my account was closed.$ 294 won't save me.My products went to the trash. We've been disgraced in South Korea. Our company is a qualified manufacturer and we are proud people. If the contract is to be canceled, why are we awarded? They could ask for the letter in the first place. The contract clerk is ignorant. Although I say what the problem is, it cannot solve it. The account was closed, the money was not paid, the products were thrown away. No one gives us the information. It is very interesting that this happens in a country like America. I wanted you to know that I experienced more than finding solutions on this page. I don't want to steal anyone's time and I don't want to leave it in a difficult situation. We are trying to make a trade. I am aware of your government's strict policies. The arbitrary approach of DLA officers is very wrong. They give you correct answers too late and wrong. Marking, packaging, billing, etc. I know many things very well. I will continue to seek my right. Thank you very much to all my friends. (especially to you, Mr. Joel)

Best Regards

DENIZ KARAKAYA

EB POC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deniz,

It sounds like you shipped an item to the USA, and you were paid.  

And, you shipped an item to South Korea, but that item was rejected and you were not paid. 

Is this right?

Is it possible that you are not being paid because your product failed to pass inspection?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

Deniz,

ABD'ye bir ürün sevk ettiğiniz anlaşılıyor ve size ödeme yapıldı.  

Ve Güney Kore'ye bir ürün gönderdiniz, ancak bu ürün reddedildi ve size ödeme yapılmadı. 

Bu doğru mu?

Ürününüz incelemeyi geçemediği için size ödeme yapılmaması mümkün mü?

My product was delivered to America and I received proof of delivery. I left the product to South Korea and my contract was canceled. Unpaid money US delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...