Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

 

 

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes. You do.

Thanks Vern and as always I keep plowing until I find something.   

I am providing the following as an interesting read.   I am well aware it is not on point but close as it relates to an IDIQ and task orders (construction however) and provides a  discussion about a unilateral modification that simply deobligates money versus (in my words) a modification that deobligates money with intention to change the price of the contract. I found every thing in-between these topics to be interesting .

https://www.cbca.gov/files/decisions/2016/LESTER_07-25-16_ 3912__SAFE_HAVEN_ENTERPRISES_LLC_V_DEPARTMENT_OF_STATE.pdf

If I got the idea of a unilateral modification off track I apologize yet the case does seem to support one thought repeated in this thread.   The contractor should communicate with the government to find out something that Joel has point out with regard to the OP , why is the government "not willing to allow us to bill against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

If I got the idea of a unilateral modification off track I apologize yet the case does seem to support one thought repeated in this thread. 

@C CulhamYes, it supports the thought that I communicated, which was that a deobligation of funds, in and of itself, does not affect an agency's legal obligations under contract. See the following, from page 20 of the decision:

Quote

In its filings, SHE’s [the contractor's] sole focus has been on what it calls DOS’s illegal deobligation of funding. Yet, a contractor’s rights are generally governed by its contract and the agreement that it reached on price with the Government in that contract. Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 599, 604-05, appeal dismissed, 157 F. App’x 264 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although there is certainly a relationship between the price of a firmfixed-price contract and the agency’s obligation of funds to support that contract, contract funding is a concept associated with and dependent upon an agency’s appropriations from Congress, which is separate and distinct from contract pricing. See 1 General Accounting (now Accountability) Office (GAO), Principles of Federal Appropriations Law 1-2, 2-5 (3d ed. 2004) (GAO Redbook) (defining “appropriation” as “[a]uthoritygiven to federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments from Treasury for specified purposes”). Once there is an available appropriation through which an awarded contract could be funded, the amount of appropriated money that the agency affirmatively obligates to a firm-fixed-price contract (or takes away from it) becomes, in many ways, irrelevant to the contractor because the contractor will be entitled to payment of its contract price if it performs its contract obligations. Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181, 2189 (2012) (if agency has obligated funds through the award of a specific procurement contract, and the “Government contractor is one of several persons to be paid out of a larger appropriation sufficient in itself to pay the contractor, . . . the Government is responsible to the contractor for the full amount due under the contract, even if the agency exhausts the appropriation in service of other permissible ends”). Accordingly, assuming that “Congress appropriates adequate funds to cover a prospective contract, contractors need not keep track of agencies’ shifting priorities and competing obligations; rather, they may trust that the Government will honor its contractual promises.” Id. There is no allegation here that DOS did not have appropriations adequate to cover task order 003. 

Emphasis added.

Deobligation of funds, in and of itself, without other contract changes, has no bearing on a contractor's substantive contractual rights. See also King Construction Co., ASBCA 39170, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26630, Jan. 14, 1994. The appellant in the case above paid a lawyer for nothing. It was stupid to file a claim objecting to a deobligation of funds.

Once again, ji20874's advice to the OP not to freak out over the deobligation and just send an invoice has been proven to be sound. However, I do agree with you that upon receiving an unexplained unilateral modification to deobligate funds, a contractor would be wise to inquire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Once again, ji20874's advice to the OP not to freak out over the deobligation

I am not going to disagree based on the general information offered by the OP but in context of all of WIFCON I have a concern about quick answers.  I will simply use this thread as an example.  Two additional thoughts  - the OP has never come back and with regard to quick answers I am singling no one out and adding myself to the list.

With regard to this thread.....we know -

T&M Awarded under a GSA PSS Schedule contract.   "ODCs" that need to be billed.   What are the ODCs? If ODC's are for the labor are not ODC's already included in the labor rate?  A read of GSA contract practices do allow for travel, and possibly "Other Direct Costs".

FAR and GSA FSS standards strongly suggest (example FAR 16.601 &12.207) that a T&M have a ceiling price.   Could it be that the governments action of deobligation and the inferred   "We still need roughly $170k that the government is taking back and not willing to allow us to bill against." is about a ceiling and not a simple action of fund management?  

I then took the thread on a journey regarding why a contractor might freak out, my bad.    But I do wonder if advice to quit worrying and simply submit an invoice is sound as well.

I read too much, and read in too much, and I am resolved after re-reading the thread that the first action of the contractor is not to submit an invoice but talk to the  CO to find out what is going on and go from there as there could be a whole lot more buried in the original post.

Off base, derailing the thread with this post, yes probably, but I was reminded of this recent thread as I read and re-read this thread.   Great information in general was provided but was the issues for the OP really sorted out?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You have made your point, Carl,

Haven't we all ☺️

“…I think ji20874 was right:…”

“…I think ji20874 has given the OP good advice….”

“…Once again, ji20874's advice to the OP not to freak out over the deobligation and just send an invoice has been proven to be sound. …”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let’s call a truce. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Haven't we all ☺️

“…I think ji20874 was right:…”

“…I think ji20874 has given the OP good advice….”

“…Once again, ji20874's advice to the OP not to freak out over the deobligation and just send an invoice has been proven to be sound. …”

Do you disagree with me? If not, then truce. 😈

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve learned over the years that certain debaters in the Forum will doggedly persist until they have the last word. Recommend that somebody let the other one have it. 🤗

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the time that the mother said to her child, “Just don’t say another word!”

“Okay”

”I said NOT ANOTHER WORD!

”Yes ma’m.”

”I MEAN IT!”

”I KNOW”

”sigh”…

🤣😂

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a customer who didn't pay a full invoice amount on a CR contract because the program office didn't budget the funds to cover the additional efforts that were imposed via a unilateral mod issued under the changes clause.  Contract PoP has expired.  No funds left on the relevant CLIN.

Did we mod the contract to require additional IT testing due to Covid telework? Yes.  Did we receive a benefit? Yes.  Did the vendor account for and submit the basis for their full invoiced amount? Yes.  Were the additional costs reasonable? Yes

Pretty simple really.  The fact that they are a SB and the amount was only $9K made it easier.   Currently available funding and an expired PoP are irrelevant in regard to the government's responsibility to pay for supplies and services required and received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

REA'n Maker,

So, the agency only paid the contractor a partial amount?

Since you are talking about a cost-reimbursement contract, FAR 52.232-20 para. (g) or FAR 52.232-22 para. (j), whichever is in the contract, will come into play when a change order is involved.  A contractor's failure to follow those clauses may easily result in non-payment of overrun amounts, and rightfully so.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...