I recall a federal regulation that stated words to the effect the Government is obligated to replace an entire system as opposed to a portion of a system so the Contractor can warrant the entire system being repaired / replaced. In other words, can't run a new pipe to an existing rusty pipe and expect the Contractor to warrant the entire system. 

With that being said, Contractor is required to spot paint the hull of a vessel (which is 40 feet in length) because the Government doesn't have enough funds to paint the entire hull, whether above or below the water line. The parties agreed upon a fixed price based upon a set square footage and marked those areas on the hull with the Government representative participating and present, demarcating those areas that would receive blasting, primer and paint. This is under DoD, but the vessel is not classified as a US Navy Vessel, but rather, it's a Marine Vessel. There's also a number of construction related clauses strewn throughout the contract, including 52.246-4 inspection of Services-Fixed Price. 

Question - how is it possible to warranty those portions the Contractor performed vs areas not touched by the Contractor (e.g., Gov't Inspector points to (presumably) rusty area above one of the patchworks and says to Contractor you're required to paint this too, and at no cost to the Government, along with 20 other areas I've marked.)

Wouldn't the painting fall under a "complete system" whereby the Contractor would have to blast, prime and paint the entire hull in order for any warranty to apply? 

Does anyone know of the regulation I'm referring to about the Government being required to purchase a complete system or similar language? 

I am assuming that the areas to be painted will be distinguishable from the unpainted surfaces and/or one can take pictures and measurements before and after the repairs/painting  to document and locate the repairs. Is that correct?

i am assuming that this is a service contract. Is that correct?

You can define what the warranty will specifically cover very easily in the specifications. See FAR 36.7 (particularly 46.706)..

Question: Do you want a warranty that the repairs will last for some specific period (e.g. one year?) or just that the repairs were performed in accordance with the specifications?  I’m guessing that you want a warranty of repairs for some reasonable period of time.

If so, you can use clause 52.246-19, “Warranty of Systems and Equipment under Performance Specifications or Design Criteria” as prescribed under 46.710 (c).with fill-ins as appropriate.

If this will be a construction contract, 46.710 (e)(1) allows the use of the “Warranty of Construction” clause at 52.2416-21, again with fill-in edits,  as appropriate.

Any Agency supplements or procedures would also apply…

I would thank that you’re not re-inventing the wheel here and that these type of paint repairs have been done before…

You should be able to devise the specs for the repairs and determine what you want warranted and for how long…

The “system” to be contracted for and warranted should be defined as the protective coating repairs and painting that are to be performed. 

 

 

joel - thank you for the prompt response. 

Yes, areas painted are distinguishable from other areas.

Yes, service contract.

Warranty per the contract is below as well as FAR 52.246-4(e):

• "Warranty Work: The Contractor shall complete all repairs, maintenance and modifications prior to Government inspection. All work and materials provided must be in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) requirements. ... The contractor is responsible to ensure that all class requirements are met at the time the tasks are accomplished. The Government reserves the right to inspect the work during execution. The Contractor shall warranty all completed tasks for a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days or duration approved by the  CO."

Do you know of the regulation call out pertaining to having to buy a complete system in order for a warranty to be valid? 

1 hour ago, Guest108830 said:

Do you know of the regulation call out pertaining to having to buy a complete system in order for a warranty to be valid? 

No, I don’t.  You are going to bilaterally agree on the contract requirements including the terms or the warranty.

60 days is a pretty simple warranty to meet. Does the boat come out of the water regularly within that time frame? 

My Catalina 36 sailboat bottom jobs or spot repairs are warranted longer than that . I only pull the boat at most once per year to check the bottom.

Edit: my fiberglass sailboat boat bottom paint is good for 2-3 years in Gulf Coast salt water with an annual haul out and power wash. I may have to make some small paint touch up paint repairs. 

Next scheduled haul out wouldn't be for 2.5 years. Set to go into the water within the next month, assuming the paint situation is adequately addressed. Government is concerned the next haul out would be quicker than 2.5 years if left as-is. Hence the question about warranty coming into play.

A contract to paint a vessel's bottom doesn't sound to me like a system procurement or an equipment procurement.  Any FAR text (including warranty clauses) for systems and equipment procurements seems inappropriate, and should not drive your actions or decisions.

Edit: just realized that FAR 52.246-4 is Inspection of Services clause, not a warranty clause.

————————————————

 Well the warranty of Services clause is fairly limp and is mainly intended to make sure the services were performed, which you ought to be able to tell simply  by iinspecting each step of all repairs before the next step,  e.g. sanding, grinding or sandblasting all marked locations (whichever is applicable), priming all surfaces, painting all surfaces. Arrange for inspections by phase/step of the repairs.

The warranty clause that I referenced is applicable to service contracts but had a little more meat. You would define what the system is in the specs.

I don’t understand what the purpose or usefulness is of a 60 day warranty if the boat won’t come out of the water for one or two years.

Why can’t you ask for a longer warranty if you want it to last for 2-2.5 years? Perform market research on what is available…

Better yet, ask the Navy. They should routinely be  contracting for repairs, probably including hull painting. 

19 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

how is it possible to warranty those portions the Contractor performed vs areas not touched by the Contractor (e.g., Gov't Inspector points to (presumably) rusty area above one of the patchworks and says to Contractor you're required to paint this too, and at no cost to the Government, along with 20 other areas I've marked.)

Of interest in attempting to answer your question is whether this acquisition will be conducted pursuant to FAR past 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products or Services)

 

19 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

Wouldn't the painting fall under a "complete system" whereby the Contractor would have to blast, prime and paint the entire hull in order for any warranty to apply? 

As noted by others whether a FAR past 12 procurement or otherwise I beleive one could deliniate whether a warranty would apply only to the work or not.   

19 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

Does anyone know of the regulation I'm referring to about the Government being required to purchase a complete system or similar language?

I know of no such regulation and have researched to see if I could find such a regulation and did not.  

Nope, not a FAR Part 12 acquisition. It's FAR Part 15. I'm familiar with the Buy American (and America) Act about subassemblies and the like. Assemblies and subassemblies and the like is not at issue.

Looking at it from a standpoint of applying new paint next to hull plating that still carries the older paint, something akin to installing a new pipe into a rusty pipe. I recall a prohibition against the Government in using this approach somewhere within the regulations.  I recall it being invoked (by the Government) on a medical gas replacement with US Army Corps of Engineers (Huntsville Div) contract. Can't replace a portion of the system, have to replace the entire system. I don't believe it (the regulation) was specific to the Army.

I still say painting a vessel's bottom is not a "system" procurement in any sense of the word, and I have to believe that no instance of the word "system" in the FAR, any other procurement regulation, or any procurement court or board decision applies to a contract for painting a vessel's bottom.  A vessel's hull and the paint applied to it simply is not a "system."

So, my advice is to forget any regulation or decision involving a system procurement -- yes, certainly, you can contract for spot painting of a vessel's hull -- and yes, certainly, you can try to draft a homemade warranty clause if the standard FAR clauses don't fit, but I don't know how practical that will be (in other words, I don't know if prospective bidders will opt out of the procurement or raise their prices to exorbitant levels, and I don't know how you will enforce the warranty -- you will want to do some market research to answer these questions to your satisfaction).  Best wishes.

Are you the technical rep or contracting?

Is this spot painting a steel hull I.e., sanding and prepping and repainting and (if in salt water) applying bottom paint?

Those are typical repairs for steel hulled boat paint. 

From a contracting aspect, this is normal maintenance and repair (rust removal and patching the protective coating and bottom paint, if any). The contractor would only be warranting the extent of its work.

From the technical perspective, check with the Navy or Coast guard to see how they do it and what type of warranty they get.

Lastly, from the info you shared, it would be foolhardy not to set it up so that the government can inspect each phase as performed, e.g., after all grinding, sanding or sandblasting; after priming; after each coat of paint; after each coat of bottom paint, etc.

You could call this a “system” or not. Protective coating paint system, bottom paint system, whatever. But it is simply a repair to any such system.

As ji said, some market research is necessary. 

9 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

Nope, not a FAR Part 12 acquisition. It's FAR Part 15.

I am going to make your life difficult since this in not the Beginners Forum.

Can't it be a FAR part 12 procurment using FAR part 15 for evaluation and award?

I agree with ji, forget about systems.

And for me think about your approach instead much like Joel has advised.

And bluntly make it a commercial sevice.  Think about and apply FAR 12.404, evaluate offerors in part on their stated express warranty.

And as final offering is here my quick one minute market research to make it so....

https://sam.gov/opp/d2b0841f04874b34af1c911e80c38ba8/view

Good luck!

I agree with Carl and others.  Painting a hull is a commercial service.  Applying new paint to cover spots in older paint is done all the time at marina yards.

Spot painting is but one of the work areas. The vessel is being refit and updated to a large extent. 

It's an awarded contract. There are no FAR Part 12 clauses present. 

Am aware bottom paint is applied in commercial shipyards and on a regular basis. 

Perhaps I should've just asked if anyone is aware of the Federal Reg that prohibits acquiring a portion of something versus an entire something. We seem to be hung up on the term system, which is my fault for interjecting it to begin with. 

I'll figure it out. Thanks for the responses. 

16 minutes ago, Guest108830 said:

Spot painting is but one of the work areas.

 

16 minutes ago, Guest108830 said:

I'll figure it out.

At first i was like "Really!" and then in thinking about it I could see where I could have been confused with regard to the post and what the "real" question was.   That being said the real question that I guess was never really answered of you is - "What warranty clause from FAR subpart 46.7 is in the awarded contract?"   

If the answer is none then I would sugggest strongly that the warranty for the work is then limited to  "implied warranties of merchantability and fitness".  Reference - FAR 46.706(b)(1)(iii). 

To unravel some confusion your stated attempt at providing a quote from 52.246-4(e) by my read (without seeing the whole contract) speaks to inspecition of any warranty work.   In other words if warranty work has to be done then (e) applies to that warranty work whether you have an express warranty in the contract or if there is none then it would apply to implied warranty work as applicable.      

I hope these thoughts help you figure it out.  

Inasmuch as this is part of an awarded vessel refit contract, I suspect that there might be already a warranty of systems clause in the contract. Otherwise, why is Guest asking questions about “systems”?

It should be obvious that a warranty only applies to the work performed.

Unless the contract identifies what “systems” are within the contract scope and excluded bottom paint as a system, I consider the bottom paint protective coating system to be a system. A protective coating system starts with surface prep and includes primer application, any further surface prep and one or more applications of bottom paint.

If the contract requires an inspection, marking and repair of the bottom paint system and the contractor misses some areas that a reasonable govt inspection failed to note at the time of identification and making the repairs, then the contractor “might” be responsible for additional repairs - within the warranty period if any.

EDIT :You normally cannot make a contractor responsible for additional work areas under warranty that couldn’t be determined during the contract performance or that failed after the original contract oerformance.

It depends upon the contract requirements when read as a whole.

Edited December 29, 20231 yr by joel hoffman

1 hour ago, Guest108830 said:

Perhaps I should've just asked if anyone is aware of the Federal Reg that prohibits acquiring a portion of something versus an entire something. We seem to be hung up on the term system, which is my fault for interjecting it to begin with. 

I vaguely remember something on this subject.  I think it was in the Federal Property Management Regulations in the past.  I briefly searched and couldn’t find anything though so maybe it’s an obsolete issue.

I'm currently searching the DoD FMR's in case it was an acquisition posit... thanks for the continued search. I'll eventually find what I'm looking for and when I do I'll go ahead and post it. Whether what I find is on point or not remains to be seen. Thanks again.