Greetings:

I supervise a services contracting team, and we routinely award/administer contracts for the repair/maintenance of government owned equipment in VA medical centers.  Our supplies teams typically handle equipment leases, which have normally included any repair/maintenance in the lease price.

It is being proposed that services teams contract for repair/maintenance of contractor owned equipment being leased by the government.  I see this as extremely problematic for many reasons, but mainly because we do not own the equipment and should not be altering it.  I was told early in my contracting career that the government does not pay to fix contractor owned equipment, but cannot locate any fine print supporting this.

Any assistance or insight would be appreciated.  I may not respond back promptly, as we are deep in the fiscal year end spending chaos.  But I will check back when I can.

 

Thank you,

Drew

  

Drew,

I think you are thinking rightly.  Certainly, if we're doing a lease of equipment, it makes sense to let the leasing contractor maintain and repair its own products.

You shouldn't need "fine print" to support your position -- shouldn't common sense suffice?

36 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

shouldn't common sense suffice?

Bolstered by the industry standard for the equipment you are leasing.   Or in other words what is the the basis for the idea?  In best interest of the Government?   Market research?  Or?

3 hours ago, DrewCraig said:

I was told early in my contracting career that the government does not pay to fix contractor owned equipment, but cannot locate any fine print supporting this.

 

You didn't find the "fine print" included in the standard terms of your normal equipment lease?

5 hours ago, DrewCraig said:

I was told early in my contracting career that the government does not pay to fix contractor owned equipment, but cannot locate any fine print supporting this.

The cost of maintenance and repair (and probably profit) is included in the lease cost.  If you could make the business case that it would be cheaper for the government to do the repairs, there would be no prohibition against you doing those repairs.  Also, what is included in the concept of repair and maintenance?  Lessees of copy machines change toner cartridges.  Is this maintenance?  It is my understanding that the government pays for the maintenance and repair of GSA leased vehicles.

6 hours ago, DrewCraig said:

It is being proposed that services teams contract for repair/maintenance of contractor owned equipment being leased by the government. 

What is the justification/purpose for this approach, if one was provided. 

I have an itching feeling the team that leased the equipment forgot to have the lessor provide these services in the price. 

The only justification I have heard so far is that repairs/maintenance are generally done under service contracts.  We're not talking about just one case, we're talking about deciding which product line teams get what requirements.  But I always ask "what is the primary purpose" of the requirement.  For leased equipment, generally it is to provide a functioning system for the government to use.  Repairs/maintenance of the system is incidental to the primary purpose, in my mind.

I still think you're thinking rightly.

Agree with @ji20874.

2 hours ago, DrewCraig said:

The only justification I have heard so far is that repairs/maintenance are generally done under service contracts.

They are, for government owned equipment.

If the government leases an office building and it gets hit by a bomb in the middle of the night, we don't award a design-build contract to rebuild it. It is on the lessor. No different than this leased equipment. 

Do they also want to start awarding service contracts to cover the 3-year warranty that comes with an MRI that was purchased?

Chapter 14 (dol.gov)

14b03(a):

"Based on the language of the SCA, if a contract is “entered into” by or with the government, and if its principal purpose is “to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees,” it is subject to the SCA. See 41 USC 351(a)."