Jump to content

joel hoffman

Members
  • Posts

    7,051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joel hoffman

  1. I agree that an out of scope mod could use whatever funds are appropriate. Yes it matters where the funds come from. The Tzarina was asking whether they could use the leftover funding. Maybe, maybe not, depending upon the type of funds left over from the completed efforts for a new effort in a new fiscal year..
  2. But if the bonafide need for the existing funds has been satisfied, are the surplus funds still available for a new purpose in a new fiscal year? It would seem that the next year funding, which would be available for the new year’s efforts, should be used if there is a delay in awarding the new contract for the same work that an extension of the existing contract will accomplish?? EDIT: As the Tzarina eventually explained , she wants to use leftover funding for work that was completed in the past fiscal year to fund a bridge effort in the next FY until a delayed new contract can be awarded.
  3. But if the bonafide need for the existing funds has been satisfied, are the surplus funds still available for a new purpose in a new fiscal year?
  4. Depends upon the circumstances. Recommend reading, for instance, the WIFCON Legal pages for the Bonafide Needs Rule. Also appears that you are saying that this will be a bridge for period prior to award of or start of a follow on T&M services contract for similar efforts.
  5. Of course not! Reread the clause; “…total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six months” means just that.
  6. In a conflict of interest law suit? Sure it would. That’s not conflict of interest. And the contractor should be raising every issue of incorrect interpretation of contract requirements to the appropriate government personnel (e.g., the QA rep’s supervisors). If a contractor sued one of our QA reps without doing that, I can guarantee they would likely never again win a best value contract award. it could possibly become a responsibility issue and would also likely be reflected in the performance rating.
  7. The contractor’s site safety and health position generally doesn’t encompass the quality assurance duties of the government QA position or (usually) the corresponding quality control duties of the contractor. However, all QA personnel in the USACE (Corps of Engineers), as well as any other USACE site personnel have the duty to enforce the contract safety requirements. If the QA person has knowledge of unsafe contractor practices, they can and should act accordingly. I don’t see any “conflict of interest” here, unless the QA person is treating the contractor unfairly, acting in bad faith, arbitrarily or capriciously, etc. (e.g., an obvious vendetta). If Boomer believes that the QA person is wrongly interpreting the contract requirements, Boomer should raise that and any other behavioral issues to the appropriate government representatives and/or the KO.
  8. Proving purposeful intent can be difficult… It may just be lack of competence and/or inexperience in the job.
  9. Boomer, I hope I didn’t incite you! 🤪 I think you meant “insight” 🤠 However, you believe that: They may or may not be attitude problems but could be performance issues. I recommend that you document and at least discuss the differences of fact or opinion with a COR or other government official orally plus formally in writing. Like you said, they government might be able to connect the dots. Good luck!!
  10. What was the person’s “key personnel position” role and how does that relate to their current “key inspection position” role? The person wasn’t an employee of your company. Are they now unfairly treating your company? I had a friend who was the “office engineer” (contract admin role) in one of our ten Corps of Engineers Resident Offices on the construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which was a major Civil Works Project in the 1980’s. He was previously employed on one of the several large construction prime contracts under that Resident Office. They weren’t happy. They later submitted a claim on the contract. He knew all the facts about the situation. Of course, he advised the KO during the claims review. The claim had no merit.
  11. If your situation is real and if you have an attorney, this is pretty basic knowledge for anyone who reads protests. In particular, the attorney should easily be able to research the question, if non-attorneys here can provide it. I’m also aware of the scenario but didn’t respond as others already were providing the information.
  12. In a cost contract you must be transparent to the government about the makeup of your rates and the details of your direct and indirect costs…
  13. It’s negotiated contract pricing. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with the contractor proposing different salaries for the different persons, with separate pricing.
  14. I didn’t understand your comment. In a cost reimbursement contract, what level of invoicing detail are you intending to provide the government??
  15. The SCA rates are minimums, aren’t they? I don’t see why there couldn’t be multiple contract rates. Is this a negotiated contract or is there only one line/subline item for admin assistant positions in a solicitation?
  16. My recommendation is to Ditch them. You can’t properly manage the cost reimbursement subcontract without cost or budget data, which would effectively require the government to do it.
  17. Could you please elaborate; are you referring to multiple rates for one person or position?
  18. If their subcontract is CPFF they must invoice their incurred direct costs as part of their total invoice reimbursement. If you negotiated a fixed fee, isn’t it possible for you and the government to determine what the negotiated indirect cost rate portion of the invoice is? The government can confirm to you that the invoiced indirect rates are what they agreed to, can’t they? I don’t understand how the sub can refuse to provide you the budgeted direct costs either.. How do you manage a cost reimbursement subcontract without being able to track their earned value (formal or informal- doesn’t matter)? You have the contract award. If they are a direct competitor and “won’t budge”, can’t you select another company that you can work with?
  19. Excellent approach. Takes a lot of time at one per day but that could probably be adjusted, depending upon numbers and complexity…
  20. As a post-script to this discussion: If your organization states in a solicitation that the government will utilize a consensus evaluation and rating method, my strong recommendation is NEVER require or allow individual source selection team or evaluation team members to make or include a preliminary score or rating for any factors, subfactors, etc. in any notes that they create. Technical evaluators and advisors should never make rating recommendations. That’s the SS team’s role. The formal evaluation factors, rating system, etc. will provide rating criteria that the consensus evaluation process will use to document the official rating. The assigned ratings should reflect the underlying, documented basis for each rating. Start with the listed criteria, then assign a rating, not the other way around. If there is a protest, the protesting party’s attorneys will seize upon differences between an individual preliminary rating and the team concensus rating, attempting to confuse or show confusion and inconsistencies in the evaluations. Anybody who has participated on an evaluation team will know that there are often initial thoughts that get hashed out and refined during a consensus discussion and formal evaluation and may differ from individual first impressions based upon level of one’s understanding, evaluator background knowledge and experience, etc. Lessons learned from leading or participating in approximately 90 source selections. Of those only three were protested. All those protests were eventually unsuccessful. In two of them, the protestor’s counsel tried to make an issue between initial individual notes and the concensus evaluation without success. But it was very frustrating for the government team, lawyer and KO and necessitated additional time and effort that could have been spent on other work.
  21. Thanks, formerfed. I’ve been trying to make those points.
  22. Consistent with Professor Nash’s position with respect to the distinctions between an REA and a claim, it makes little sense to submit a claim for an issue such as this if the government agrees that the warranty call was invalid and agrees that David’s firm is entitled to an equitable adjustment similar to a pre-acceptance invasive inspection situation. For a contractor claim, David would have to request a contracting officer’s decision. See FAR 33.2, 41 USC Chapter 7, and the disputes clause of the contract. If this was a government “claim”, the contracting officer must make a KO Decision. A KO would be a fool to make a KO decision at the time of a warranty call, especially one that turns out NOT to be a valid warranty matter. It would seem clear here that the government never inspected the roof and didn’t know the source of the leaks. Thats all an unnecessary waste of time and effort and won’t foster good will on either party’s part. ”33.204 Policy. The Government’s policy is to try to resolve all contractual issues in controversy by mutual agreement at the contracting officer’s level. Reasonable efforts should be made to resolve controversies prior to the submission of a claim…” Im done trying to reason with Carl. I hope David can understand that there are more satisfactory methods to achieve what he is asking for than submitting a claim, which would require a request for a KO decision on a matter that probably isn’t in dispute. And I doubt that the government has initiated a claim, which would have necessarily required a KO final decision.
×
×
  • Create New...