All Activity

Well, even under a TFD situation where there was partial performance, a contractor would be paid for what it did accomplish, unless the partial performance was unacceptable. However, there would have to be a mutually understood (meeting of the minds) as to what constitutes an “acceptable” performance standard. If the government decided that it is disappointed with the training provided and wants to cancel the remaining sessions, my guess is that any refund would be limited to the cost of the 8 unperformed training sessions.

As I continue to read this discussion thread I get the feeling there is the here and now with a specific situation and how you might address for the future. I say this per the mention of the SF-44. Here is a thought moving forward, the government purchase card by some references is called the Government Commercial Purchase Card (GCPC), reference FAR 13.301. Implication is therefore it is used to purchase commercial products and services. Usually, at least based on my understanding, purchase of the needs just in time or now. As a previous commenter provided purchasing future services might be questionable yet I could see the need sometimes. So if there is a need, along with the need, as demonstrated in this thread, for some clauses to protect the delivery of future services, why not, as allowed by FAR 13.301(c)(3) have a simple order using say a SF-1449 or something like it (reference FAR 12.204), include a clause or two and provide that payment will be made by GCPC. There might be argument about inclusion of FAR clause 52.212-4 in total yet consider both FAR 12.102 and tailoring of 52.212-4 as allowed by FAR 12.302. Of course you would have to have a willing vendor to do so, therefore just a thought on my part for consideration. Sample of extending this thought - This order provides for both the purchase of and payment of the following services via the Government Commercial Purchase Card.

Just for everyone’s information, I found this about the Disputes process for services not provided, when using the Citibank GPC: https://www.citigroup.com/tts/solutions/commercial-cards/assets/docs/govt/Transaction-Dispute-Office-Guide.pdf

Sort of.

Thank you. As to your questions my response are guesses as it should be the agency that provides their view of what they are hoping for per the solicitation wording and the CLIN setup. Noting this my thoughts are.... General - Has the agency stated FAR provision 52.215-1 with its Alt 1 in the RFP where they affirm that there will be discussions? If so and if you make the competitive range remember you will have opportunity to discuss your questions and realign you proposal based on answers. If not with Alt 1 then remember the agency might award without discussions. RFP - I always get a little skittish when terms are interchanged. You say RFP, then refer to "bid" and then by my own experience if the agency is looking for a something they have deemed to be "commercial" pursuant to the FAR it might be a RFQ. If the latter it could be 52.215-1 is not in the solicitation and 52.212-1 is. This said I would be combing the solicitation to determine if the agency has said anything about intentions to have discussions or not. Cost reimbursable CLIN - I suspect the agency is actually saying "cost" basis or in other words no fee is going to be allowed on travel. I know I am mincing details but pursuant to FAR Part 16 there are actually several forms of "cost reimbursement". Travel - Sometimes I have seen where there is ceiling or a Not To Exceed on travel costs and travel must be approved by the government. I really do not need to know if the solicitation you have provides such limits just pointing out as something to look for. FAR 31.205-46 - Might want to take a look at this reference. One would suppose that travel as a cost CLIN the principles in this citation would be applicable. Question 1 - A good question for the Marines yet your approach makes sense based on what I have seen agencies do. Question 2 - Approach is sound based on limited info. Hope I have helped and I agree with formerfed I would be asking the agency CO in writing.

Take a look at the RFP language. Often the wording says something permissive like the government may not answer questions after the date has passed. Also sometimes they will answer a question about a confusing issue anyway to avoid problems later for themselves. It won’t hurt to ask.

Company decided to bid the opportunity after the question were due.

Why has the Q&A period already passed?

Hello- We are responding to a FFP RFP as the Prime to the Marine Corp and there is a Travel CLIN for both the base period and option period. In section L of the RFP is states “Travel is on a Cost Reimbursable CLIN; therefore, the government will provide the unburdened overall estimated cost to be used in all Offerors’ price proposals”. In the pricing deliverable the government provides dollar values for the Travel CLINs. My two questions are as follows: 1. We have multiple subcontractors that will require travel to support us. Should we, as the prime, request the subcontractor not include travel in their proposal back to us since a travel figure is already provided by the government to us? If travel should be included by subcontractor, I’m not entirely sure where to place the travel dollars in their proposal within ours. 2. Internally we are not bidding any travel, again since a dollar figure is already provided, but are requesting BOE providers to bid the labor associated with a travel events and time on location. Just want to make sure this is how we should be interpreting the government’s expectations based on the above. Q&A period has already passed and we are trying to determine the best path forward. More than happy to provide any additional data or information that I may have mistakenly omitted. Thank you in advance!

Aside from the other discussion concerning the SF44, the form is or was only usable for situations with a single delivery and a single payment. It isn’t intended for up front payment for future services. The GPC shouldn’t be used for upfront payment of future services, either in my opinion. I wouldnt make a single payment up front for ten classroom courses…. https://www.acquisition.gov/node/29498/printable/pdf

I asked a friend what’s going on. He replied a decision was made several years ago to phase out the SF 44 because the Debt Collection Improvement Act requires maximum use of EFT. But he couldn’t remember how that decision was communicated. He thinks it was something saying let’s not continue any longer but the FAR hasn’t been changed. I searched FAR 53 forms and the SF 44 isn’t listed. Really odd.

Hey, just curious. Did they flub the two course sessions presented? Wishing Good luck for you.

Looks like GPC dispute procedures is what needs to be done in the case I presented for this thread. Thanks everyone! Much appreciated!

Do what the FAR says -- for a micropurchase, take your pick among FAR 13.301 (preferred, and your selection for the case in this thread), 302, 303, 305, or 306. If you choose 13.302 for a micropurchase, then YES, you will use appropriate clauses for a purchase order because you're in 13.302, and 13.302 prescribes clauses for purchase orders. But for the case in this thread, are you ready to drop the idea of imposing T4D clauses? And maybe use GPC dispute procedures instead?

Hmmm. Do you have Adobe installed? Strange. When I click, the form pops up. If you are using a government computer, maybe it’s blocking things Edit: I see what you mean. When I use Google, the link doesn’t work. Odd that GSA doesn’t fix that.

When I click your link, it brings me to the GSA link that I posted, and there is no SF 44 form to click on there.

Try this. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/13.306 The form shows up at the beginning in a pdf link

I'm trying to find Form SF 44. The only link I found is https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/us-government-purchase-order-invoice-voucher. But the form is not there. What happened to SF 44?

If it’s an order for supplies, there should be little reason to have to terminate. The contract/order is funded. If they haven’t shipped the items yet, first contact them to check to see if they can hold them for a few days… Well, today is the 30th deadline. Unless the OP is working today, the question is now academic.

ji20874, I see what you are saying. My scenario is dealing with a micro-purchase using the GPC, not a "purchase order." But still, while FAR 13.201(b) says the GPC "shall be the preferred method to purchase and to pay for micro-purchases," it also says at FAR 13.201(c) says purchases below the MPT "may be conducted using any of the methods described in subpart 13.3." So for next time, if we are doing a purchase that is below the MPT, but we do it using a Purchase Order instead of using the GPC, then FAR 13.302-4 applies (it brings in FAR 52.212-4 termination clauses), right? Note, FAR 2.101 Definitions defines "Purchase order" as Purchase order, when issued by the Government, means an offer by the Government to buy supplies or services, including construction and research and development, upon specified terms and conditions, using simplified acquisition procedures.

Really? Are you dealing with (1) a purchase using the GPC, or (2) a purchase order? You assert that FAR 13.302-4 applies to both purchases using the GPC and purchase orders, but I don't understand the basis for your assertion. According to my understanding, FAR 13.301 applies to purchase card purchases, and FAR 13.302-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5 apply to purchase orders. Isn't the Christian Doctrine is a judicial doctrine or remedy? Are contracting officers allowed to cite the Christian Doctrine as authority for imposing their will on contractors? I think maybe you are pushing too hard. I agree with Carl for one-on-one with the vendor, and then maybe a credit card chargeback if appropriate.

I necessarily do not disagree. Others will. In the end I suggest one on one with the vendor. If they are silent dispute the GPC charges and be comfortable that you have done the best you can!

FAR 13.301 Governmentwide commercial purchase card states that agencies are supposed to establish procedures for the use and control of the card. FAR 13.302-4 Termination or cancellation of purchase orders explains what to do regarding termination. It states, “If a purchase order that has been accepted in writing by the contractor is to be terminated, the CO shall process the termination in accordance with FAR 12.403 and FAR 52.212-4(l) or (m) for commercial products and commercial services,” or “FAR 49 or FAR 52.213-4 for other than commercial products or commercial services.” It seems that FAR 13.302-4 applies to all GPC purchases, including those below the MPT. What it sounds like is, if the services purchased are commercial, then, even if the amount is below the MPT, if the vendor has accepted in writing "the purchase order," and the CO needs to terminate, then the FAR 52.212-4 applies. Isn't this saying that FAR 52.212-4 is a "required" clause that, even if it is somehow left out, it will be read into the Contract pursuant to the Christian Doctrine.

You asked a pretty clear question and deserve a clear answer. Retreadfed pointed you in a good direction. Aside, look at the commercial termination for convenience clause for authority. Also, there is a lot of literature suggesting that a lapse of appropriation resulting in a shutdown is a Sovereign Act. My understanding is that the latter is a defense against certain claims. Lastly, in cases where site availability or necessary oversight, engagement, or inspection is required, but unavailable (e.g., can’t take delivery) - this may be an excusable delay under a contract clause Retreadfed mentioned (I don’t view this as an authority, per se). These are general responses to your general question. The facts will dictate if any of these are sound.

The "Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG)" was part of an Air Force Source Selection team. The term was found in the AFFARS at least as late as January 2008 (at MP5315.3, 4.3.3.), but the term was changed to "Past Performance Team" some time before 2013. You can still find references to the PCAG term in older protests (e.g. B-298697, November 14, 2006).