Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About buonomma

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It is not. This is a sole source requirement for that reason. These items are being evaluated and repaired by the manufacturer
  2. Thanks for the input and ideas, everyone! Based on the responses, I take that there is in fact no tried and true, or commonly accepted procedure for such requirements. Everything above has crossed my mind in some manner, which ultimately led me to my above proposed process. With that, I'd like to pose my original question, which is... Does any one have any thoughts on "oral orders", as referenced in FAR 16.504(a)(4)(vi), which states, "Include authorization for placing oral orders, if appropriate, provided that the Government has established procedures for obligating funds and tha
  3. I am currently working on a Sole Source IDIQ for the repair of commercial GFP. In the past, when my office has issued single contracts for this exact same requirement to the same sole source contractor, it was solicited and awarded as FFP, with only the testing/evaluation being the FFP portion. The cost to actually perform the repairs is unknown at the time of contract/order issuance. As a result, the award is issued with a ceiling price, which includes the FFP test and evaluation cost as well as a not to exceed amount for the actual repairs. This results in 99% of the contracts/orders re
  4. Doing some past research regarding FAR 52.217-8 (6 Month Option), I strongly remember reading SOMEWHERE, that once all 6 months have been exercised (whether for a single 6 month extension or any other monthly increments totaling 6 months) IAW this clause that the Contract is ended and there is no further recourse to extend the contract, even if any other option periods (IAW -9) remain. Did I make this up? Did I misinterpret something? I have been searching for hours and can't find anything remotely alluding to this. So, am I stupid or bad at researching? Or both? Any responses
  5. Why should the Government be responsible for paying this premium all because their bonding agency demanded it? This is not standard practice nor should it become one. Maybe in certain circumstances in would be advantageous for one/some subcontractors to be bonded, but certainly not in my specific situation. Just because it may be the surety's policy to require bonds of the subs does not make it a "sound business practice". It provides no additional advantages or assurances for the Government, rather only to the surety and maybe the Contractor, so why should we be responsible for reimbursin
  6. We are currently in negotiations for a FFP sole-source 8(a) construction requirement. The offeror provided a breakdown of all subcontractor costs, which showed that the prime contractor is "back bonding" their subcontractors, essentially requiring performance bonds of them. This is not a requirement of the solicitation, nor of Government policy, for subcontractors to be bonded. Rather the prime will be required to provide payment and performance bonds, which they are, in addition to this "back bonding". This additional cost to the Government for this is a relatively substantial number.
  7. I am very familiar and aware of every point made thus far, and am greatly appreciative for everyone's time. However, I am trying to be creative here to meet my customer's needs, so was trying to find out if there was anything prohibiting me from doing the following... My goal is to NOT require the Contractor (therefore the surety) to increase the penal sum of the bond amount and cover the added work. Given the circumstances of the contract, and the scope of the modification, there is little to no benefit to the Government in requiring payment/performance bonds. Would this require
  8. I did not mention anything about "reducing" the amount of the bonds, nor do I wish to do so. Rather, the intent is to NOT require any ADDITIONAL bonds as a result of increase in the contract price via modification; we do not require an increase in the penal amount/ A significant portion of work (>90%) is in fact completed.
  9. I appreciate the quick response! It sure does. I am leaning towards the applicable FAR Clause, 52.228-15 -- Performance and Payment Bonds -- Construction, which states: "The Government may require additional performance and payment bond protection if the contract price is increased. The increase in protection generally will equal 100 percent of the increase in contract price." Furthermore, "The Government may secure the additional protection by directing the Contractor to increase the penal amount of the existing bond or to obtain an additional bond."
  10. I have an upcoming modification to a construction contract for work within scope, which will increase the contract price by <$150k. The Payment and Performance Bonds have been required by the contract and provided by the Contractor. In all previous modifications, the Government has paid the Contractor's bond rate for each increase. IAW FAR 28.102-2(d), if the contract price increases, the Government must secure any additional bonding needed. Is there any wiggle room on this? We only have a certain amount of funding and applying the bond rate to the Contractor's proposal puts us
  • Create New...