Jump to content

kenny

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Yes, our financial personnel will need to determine if we can collect these funds. Currently, the stewardship authority allows us to collect funds for forest products and retain those funds to perform other work. Clearly this is augmentation. How far can we take this will require financial and legal advice. And yes, I agree that the Contractor will include the admin costs that they pay into the price they will charge us for services to be performed. Or in this case, they would reduce the price they will pay for forest products.
  2. Here are my responses in red text: 1. Assuming it gets a contractor to agree, does the Forest Service have the authority to accept the funds and deposit them in Forest Service accounts rather than as Miscellaneous Receipts? The Forest Service may have authority to collect the funds under our stewardship authority. We are still looking into this. 2. Will the amount of administrative costs be identified up front, or does the Forest Service expect the contractor to agree to whatever bill is presented? We plan to identify the hourly rates for the people and provide an estimate of the administrative time. Obviously, if the contract requires additional administration, the cost to the contractor will increase 3. What happens if the costs are identified up front and then turn out to be inaccurate, whether too high or too low? Will the Forest Service demand payment of the deficiency or reimburse the excess? We will provide an estimate, but the contractor will be required to pay actual costs incurred. 4. Does the Forest Service really expect the contractor to absorb these costs rather than build them into the price? Yes, the Forest Services wants the money to be paid, so we can have additional people available to do the administration. Remember, this project is beyond their regular program of work for which they are budgeted. What will the Forest Service gain in the end other than transferring the costs from the account that should be paying them to the account that pays the contractor? The Forest Service will gain by having additional people available to perform contract administration BEYOND their regular work load.
  3. The Forest plans to have a complete GAO review of the project once the market research is complete. As for the bundling issue, we have a class waiver signed by the HCAD to bundle stewardship projects.
  4. A couple of comments regarding Carl's response. 1. Stewardship authority allows the Forest Service to collect monies from a contractor and retain those funds at the project site or another project site. While those funds come from the forest products that are being sold, we may be able to push the envelope and say that stewardship authority allows us to augment our appropriations. 2. We aren't trying to charge liquidated damages in advance. The FS wants the contractor to pay for the admin so the FS can continue to perform their regular work with the appropriations they received. 3. We don't want to go commercial item because we want some of the protection clauses and we may have some construction down the line. While construction is not prohibited in a commercial item acquisition. again we want many of those protection clauses. 4. All inherently governmental work will be performed by the Forest Service. We don't see that as a problem. In response to here_2_help - yes, this is a pay to play type acquisition. Do you see a problem with that?
  5. I should not have been so obscure. The Forest Service has issued a request for information on FedBizOpps. They are trying to do a project to promote jobs in Eastern Washington. The project is cradle to grave - the contractor does everything. This project is in addition to their regular program of work. So their work force is already busy doing other work which they received appropriations to perform. And the project is not to impact them. In order to achieve no impact, they are considering charging the contractor for all the contract administration which would then free up the funds for the regular program of work to fund a contractor to perform that work. All inherently governmental functions will remain with the government. Here is a link to the RFI. It is an interesting project! https://www.fbo.gov/...b=core&_cview=0 So, other than the self appropriations issue, do you think it is allowable to charge the contractor these administrative costs if we tell them right up front?
  6. So other than the augmentation of funds issue, can the solicitation and resultant contract state that the contractor shall pay all government administrative costs? An agency is looking at issuing a solicitation for work beyond their regular program of work and they want the contractor to pay for the administration of the contract so there is no impact to their regular program of work.
  7. That's what I thought - thanks for the confirmation!
  8. These BPAs are not established against any existing GSA Schedule. The Agency is creating their own BPAs. That is why I asked if BPA calls greater than the simplified acquisition threshold would need to be advertised. I am a little confused on this. There is no underlying contract in place.
×
×
  • Create New...