Jump to content

anonymous55

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Thanks for the insight Joel and Vern.
  2. Thanks for the quick reply. I have read other threads on this site regarding VEQs, but not link you provided. In general terms, we agree that amount of work for the three supporting items was fixed, there are some caveats to that but not worth going into. I was thinking that if they could prove what their actual costs were for the fixed items of work, we could figure out what their actual "loss" was by doing this: [actual costs for fixed items of work / actual under-run qyt. ] - [actual costs for fixed items of work / contract qyt.] = unrecovered unit cost unrecovered unit cost x [85% of contract qyt. - actual qyt.] = equitable adjustment amount Does that seem right? Also, we have learned a lesson about incorporating fixed quantity items with variable quantity items in one line item....
  3. I am involved in administration of a FFP construction contract that had a 50% under-run (actual quantity was half of the contract estimated quantity) for a unit price line item and the contract contained the VEQ clause (52.211-18). Per the measure and payment terms of the contract, that unit priced pay item was to be measured by the volume of actual excavation but also include the cost for three supporting activities (activities other than excavation such as vegetation removal). The contactor is alleging that the three supporting items were essentially fixed and were required to be performed regardless of the amount of excavation and since the amount of excavation was less than expected, they were not able to recover those costs. I could use the following guidance: 1. With the limited information provided and assuming that the alleged fixed costs were actually fixed, does the contractor’s premise seem to have merit? 2. What burden of proof does the contractor need to provide to substantiate that a revised unit price is warranted? I was thinking they would need to show how much they actually expended on the “fixed” items of work, which would therefore be spread over the under-run quantity. 3. If the unit price was revised, would the adjusted unit price apply to the entire amount of the under-run (contract quantity – actual quantity) or would the revised unit price only apply to the difference beyond the 85% amount (85% of contract quantity – actual quantity)? Let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks.
  4. Thank you to everyone who posted to this topic. This has been a valuable discussion for myself and our office. The way our SSP defines "marginal" has similar language to the above quoted DOD reference, therefore it was probably the best decision for us to conduct discussions to resolve the marginal sub-factor. Although, due to this forum, our office has taken a closer look at how we define the term "marginal" in our SSP and might make some revisions for our next RFP solicitation to provide us more flexibility in a similar situation. Thanks again for your time and insight.
  5. I am involved with an RFP for a FFP construction contract that has three technical factors, two of which have sub-factors. Our office ranks each factor and sub-factor of the technical proposals using an adjective rating system: Exceptional, Acceptable, Neutral (only used of past-performance), Marginal and Unacceptable My question is, can the CO make an award to an offeror if their proposal has one technical sub-factor ranked as "marginal" as opposed to being either "acceptable" or "exceptional" when the overall rating for that proposal is "acceptable"? People in our office have different opinion regarding this. Some think that it is necessary to enter into discussions with that offeror to address the "marginal" sub-factor and others say that it would be in the Government's best interest (in this case from a time standpoint) to make an award without discussions regardless of the one "marginal" rating. From reading Part 15 of the FAR I was not able to come to any conclusion on this. Thanks for you help.
×
×
  • Create New...