Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. My company is currently bidding a large contract. With two weeks prior to proposals due, the Contracting Office changed the NAICS code. Although, the set-aside remains the same, the NAICS code size standard changed from 1500 people to $25 Million, which takes us from a small business, to a large business. Needless to say, this causes much consternation due to the fact that we were swiftly removed from the competition. First and foremost, is this possible? Secondly, if it is, can I submit a claim to recoup expenses? I have a short fuse on this so please respond with your input shortly. Much appreciated!
  2. To Navy_Contracting_4 - Yes, this is a firm fixed price level-of-effort contract and we did provide the full level-of-effort. To Here to Help - Yes, we submitted a final invoice on 9/26/2012 to the WAWF. The WAWF rejected the invoice because there were no timesheets to account for the remaining funds. The hours that were remaining were for vacation and holidays, which were not billed to them throughout the life of the contract (this was the error I mentioned in my earlier post). On 18 Oct 2012, I received a SF 30 (modification to deobligate funds). This modification was sent to us after we submitted our final invoice on 9/26/2012 for $10,061.76 (for 248.5 - holiday and vacation hours, which were inadvertently not billed throughout the contract lifecycle). Which, by the way, is the exact amount of the invoice.
  3. We have no issue with our customer. Our customer is simply only doing what is required of them. We are not in dispute with that. As a matter of fact, after a meeting this afternoon, we have come to a resolution on how to handle this. Vern, thanks for your time and Pennypeth thank you as well. The misunderstanding came with the flow-down from the GSA schedule. Once that was mentioned by the CO, it made sense.
  4. We do dispute the SCA applies to our BPA. The BPA does not include the FAR clauses 52.222-41, Service Contract Act of 1965 (NOV 2007), and 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act--Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) (SEP 2009) or 52.222-434, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act--Price Adjustment (SEP 2009). With regard to your request for me to explain "through." What I was trying to say is they = Department of Labor (who is conducting the audit) had our customer (Administrative Offices of the US Courts) send us an amendment to the BPA, which 1. incorporates Clause 3-160, Service Contract Act of 1965 2. retroactively incorporates Wage Determination No 2005-2103 dated 2011 and 2012. While conducting the audit, they found this BPA was not an SCA contract. In order to now make it an SCA specific BPA so they can penalize us, they requested our customer modify the BPA as stated above. Please remember, when originally competing for this BPA, we knew the competition was robust and due to the fact that there was no SCA regulations, we priced it very competitevely. This means that if we are now forced to pay a specific wage and $3.71 for Health and Welfare, we will go into the red on this project. We are the prime on this contract.
  5. Good afternoon, Mr. Edwards: First, let me thank you in advance, for your assistance. This site is wonderful for getting another perspective on all things Federal Government contracting. Here is my question: Recently, the Department of Labor has been conducting an audit of the Service Contract Act to ensure we have been following appropriate procedures (i.e. paying correct wage and health and welfare). Last week, we received an amendment to modify a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) through an amendment that retroactively incorporates the Wage Determination schedules for 2011 and 2012. What they are attempting to do is force our customer to have us sign the amendment so that we would be responsible for the wage differences and health and welfare from the inception of the contract. I have done a quick calculation and for the number of hours that we have put into the BPA calls, it would add up to a very large number. We would have never priced the contract as we did if this was an SCA contract and we stand to lose a significant amount of dollars if we were to accept this retroactively. Can you please tell me what recourse we may have. Thank you very much!
  6. Our book keeper, who is no longer with us, did not bill the customer correctly - for some reason she billed it by the hour like a T&M contract. Thus, leaving dollars on the contract After we realized the error, we tried to retrieve the funds, but were denied by the funding activity. They requested back up timesheets. However, the work is complete and there aren't any. Thanks for your assistance in helping me clear this up.
  7. Vern, With a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, what happens to the dollars that are left at the end of the contract? Do they go to the contractor or stay on the contract and get deobligated? Thanks for your help.
  8. I am hoping someone can provide me with some information regarding a situation that has recently ocurred. I recently received a debriefing letter for a proposal that we lost. After later review of the letter, I realized that it stated one of our customers gave us an unfavorable rating, which caused our past performance risk to be high. I could not understand how that could be, because we had never been counseled or otherwise told that there were issues under that specific contract. To make a long story short, I come to find out that the Contracting Officer of Record diverted our past performance evaluation and sent it to another contracting person in the same organization and asked her to fill it out. That person sent it to the COTR and the COTR evaluated a completely different contract. One that we had several problems due to scope creep, etc. We are outside the protest window, but I was wondering what the FAR says about this issue. Can someone help? Thanks
  9. Vern, Thank you for this. I figured it had to do with the SOW. So they want me to take every SOW reference and tell them if I comply? If not, I would then have to state why I don't comply, tell them where it is in the RFQ and then trace it back to the proposal. That makes sense, except it would be easier if they made it a "Non-Compliance Matrix," this way I wouldn't have to list every SOW reference. Only those I don't comply with, which more often than not, are none. Very respectfully, Joe Mimoso
  10. I am currently working on a rather large proposal. One of the requirements of the RFQ is to provide a compliance matrix. Unfortunately, there is very little information regarding how to fill these matrices out. What they do say is: This matrix should demonstrate that the Offeror has complied with the requirements in the RFQ and provide traceabiliity from the requirement to the proposal. These are the columns we need to address: Requirement ID: Requirement Description: Offeror Complies (Yes/No) Exceptions, if any (Exceptions must be noted if non-compliant) RFQ Reference Offeror Proposal Reference Can you please tell me what exactly they are looking for us to do. Are they looking for us to provide input on every requirement. Normally, I have seen these as Non-Compliance Matrices. Where you only list those requirements you can't comply with. Please help
  • Create New...