Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CharliD

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Love family, friends and pets. Love my HD Road King. Love our camper. Love traveling around the North American continent with my hubby whether on our bikes or in the camper. Enjoy snow skiing.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,460 profile views
  1. Hello All - What are my attorney's saying? They are saying our ability to recover for damages is very limited. And due to other extenuating circumstances within this region of the VA I really cannot give any more information. Suffice it to say that "its complicated." And yes, I am in regular communication with our OGC. I had always thought of FAR 52.236-9 as a "during construction kind of application," but in reading it I may need to be more creative in my thought process.
  2. Thank you all for your responses. Both FAR 52.246-12 and FAR 52.246-21 are in the contract and as you note there is not much there. The latent defect may come into play; however, there will still be no way to recover full costs incurred. Also, I'll read the case referenced by C Culham. This situation just came to light, but once I know outcomes we will certainly post an amendment to their CPARS report. FAR 32.601(b)(11) should be applicable here. It does not look like it will extend beyond materials and direct labor; however.
  3. The contract does not address actual damages resulting from the contractor's work when those damages are incurred after final acceptance. I have also submitted this to VA legal counsel, but thought I would see what I could find here as well. And, because the CPARS was already completed, then no, it does not address this problem.
  4. The VA has experienced a couple of warranty issues and a power outage that are the direct result of the contractor’s work. Construction was completed and the VA had taken beneficial occupancy and given final acceptance of the building. Since that time the VA has experienced several warranty issues; two of which have caused significant additional cost to the facility. Split Fittings: Fittings installed on water lines to sinks began failing almost immediately after beneficial occupancy and there have been multiple failures since then. Over time (6 months or so) the VA was able to con
  5. Mr. Edwards asks a good question, "Third, why are you talking about "descope" instead of partial termination for convenience?" Recently, the VA awarded a construction contract which included the base item(s) and option item 2. Now that construction is underway, the VA has determined it really cannot afford option item 2 and wants to remove it from the contract. Of course, there is a small portion of option item 2 SOW that must still be performed, so it is not a completely clean de-scoping mod. The contract specialist asked me if this is a "reduction in scope" under the Changes clause or a p
  6. This has been an interesting discussion. The most embarrassing part is that I'm not really new to this field, yet based on my previous experience I had become confused about this stuff. Annoying. Regardless, I hope that for truly novice contract types, this discussion has provided some useful insight, rationale and suggestions. After referring her to this string, as well as Vern and C Culhams recommended readings, I am recommending the following to my boss. We should seriously re-vamp our solicitation and response evaluation procedures in the MATOC. In fact, maybe we want to resolicit the
  7. Maybe the answer lies in even attempting to apply solicitation procedures of FAR Parts 13, 14 or 15 to the procedures of Part 16. Maybe I'm just borrowing trouble, but if there is an issue it will be FAR Parts 13, 14 or 15 that provide guidance.
  8. WOW! So my question stems from the practice of competing procurements (specifically construction) among multiple IDIQ contract holders and the instructions tell the contractors that the government will be following the solicitation procedures of FAR Part 13, 14 or 15. In my experience this has been typical. But if we do this, doesn't the type of solicitation procedures being followed and the response received affect whether or not that response is legally binding? And I just think (again, maybe over thinking) that the agency where I currently work is making the water very muddy by not bein
  9. This is applicable to solicitation responses under IDIQ contracts. Most specifically MATOCs for construction services. I thought I knew this stuff until a supervisor wanted to issued RFQs under MATOCs because it was easier and more streamlined. I know that is the guidance, but how far does one take that? Maybe I am overthinking this, but I think a few factors need considered. Here is my thought process and rationale. 1. FAR Part 2 does not define Requests for Quotes (RFQ), specifically. 2. FAR Part 2 does define "solicitation." ""Solicitation" means any request to submit offers or quotat
  10. It is correct that I do not work for DOD. I am with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). I did work for USACE for 15 years (left in 2006), but do not recall this being an issue. The VA's clauses and specs do not address float - or at least not in this contract. Thank you for all of your replies and insight. I can see that I have much more research / learning to do.
  11. In a fixed price construction contract procured via FAR Part 15 procedures, who owns the float in the schedule? The contractor's schedule submitted after award and accepted by the government showed an early completion date for the work. The contractor maintains that they own the float in the schedule, meaning that time between their planned completion date and the completion date of the contract. A little internet research tells me that the commercial market place has three schools of thought: 1. The contractor owns the flow; 2. the owner owns the float; and 3. the project owns the float. I
  • Create New...