Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm currently searching the DoD FMR's in case it was an acquisition posit... thanks for the continued search. I'll eventually find what I'm looking for and when I do I'll go ahead and post it. Whether what I find is on point or not remains to be seen. Thanks again.
  2. Spot painting is but one of the work areas. The vessel is being refit and updated to a large extent. It's an awarded contract. There are no FAR Part 12 clauses present. Am aware bottom paint is applied in commercial shipyards and on a regular basis. Perhaps I should've just asked if anyone is aware of the Federal Reg that prohibits acquiring a portion of something versus an entire something. We seem to be hung up on the term system, which is my fault for interjecting it to begin with. I'll figure it out. Thanks for the responses.
  3. Nope, not a FAR Part 12 acquisition. It's FAR Part 15. I'm familiar with the Buy American (and America) Act about subassemblies and the like. Assemblies and subassemblies and the like is not at issue. Looking at it from a standpoint of applying new paint next to hull plating that still carries the older paint, something akin to installing a new pipe into a rusty pipe. I recall a prohibition against the Government in using this approach somewhere within the regulations. I recall it being invoked (by the Government) on a medical gas replacement with US Army Corps of Engineers (Huntsville Div) contract. Can't replace a portion of the system, have to replace the entire system. I don't believe it (the regulation) was specific to the Army.
  4. Next scheduled haul out wouldn't be for 2.5 years. Set to go into the water within the next month, assuming the paint situation is adequately addressed. Government is concerned the next haul out would be quicker than 2.5 years if left as-is. Hence the question about warranty coming into play.
  5. joel - thank you for the prompt response. Yes, areas painted are distinguishable from other areas. Yes, service contract. Warranty per the contract is below as well as FAR 52.246-4(e): "Warranty Work: The Contractor shall complete all repairs, maintenance and modifications prior to Government inspection. All work and materials provided must be in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) requirements. ... The contractor is responsible to ensure that all class requirements are met at the time the tasks are accomplished. The Government reserves the right to inspect the work during execution. The Contractor shall warranty all completed tasks for a minimum of sixty (60) calendar days or duration approved by the CO." Do you know of the regulation call out pertaining to having to buy a complete system in order for a warranty to be valid?
  6. I recall a federal regulation that stated words to the effect the Government is obligated to replace an entire system as opposed to a portion of a system so the Contractor can warrant the entire system being repaired / replaced. In other words, can't run a new pipe to an existing rusty pipe and expect the Contractor to warrant the entire system. With that being said, Contractor is required to spot paint the hull of a vessel (which is 40 feet in length) because the Government doesn't have enough funds to paint the entire hull, whether above or below the water line. The parties agreed upon a fixed price based upon a set square footage and marked those areas on the hull with the Government representative participating and present, demarcating those areas that would receive blasting, primer and paint. This is under DoD, but the vessel is not classified as a US Navy Vessel, but rather, it's a Marine Vessel. There's also a number of construction related clauses strewn throughout the contract, including 52.246-4 inspection of Services-Fixed Price. Question - how is it possible to warranty those portions the Contractor performed vs areas not touched by the Contractor (e.g., Gov't Inspector points to (presumably) rusty area above one of the patchworks and says to Contractor you're required to paint this too, and at no cost to the Government, along with 20 other areas I've marked.) Wouldn't the painting fall under a "complete system" whereby the Contractor would have to blast, prime and paint the entire hull in order for any warranty to apply? Does anyone know of the regulation I'm referring to about the Government being required to purchase a complete system or similar language?
  7. Found the following clause on the internet. It does not apply in my situation but it reinforces some thoughts. I'm working with a DoD contract and the following is from the EPA supplement. It clearly delineates the level of effort (hours) the Contractor must provide and also states can go 10% above the hours. But apart from that, such will not be compensated. Clear and concise. I believe I have my answer - the LOE is a hard ceiling absent a surge CLIN or other similar mechanism that allows more hours to be provided above the standard LOE / hours. Thank you. ==================================================== 1552.211-73 Level of effort - cost-reimbursement contract. As prescribed in 1511.011-73, the contracting officer shall insert the following contract clause in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF). Level of Effort - Cost-Reimbursement Contract (MAY 2016) (a) The Contractor shall perform all work and provide all required reports within the level of effort specified below. The Contractor shall provide up to ________ direct labor hours for the base period. The Government's best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill these requirements is provided for advisory and estimating purposes. The Government is only obligated to pay for direct labor hours ordered and corresponding fixed fee for labor hours completed. (b) Direct labor includes personnel such as engineers, scientists, draftsmen, technicians, statisticians, and programmers, and not support personnel such as company management or data entry/word processing/accounting personnel even though such support personnel are normally treated as direct labor by the Contractor. The level of effort specified in paragraph (a) of this section includes Contractor, subcontractor, and consultant non-support labor hours. (c) If the Contractor provides less than 90 percent of the level of effort specified for the base period or any optional period exercised, an equitable downward adjustment of the fixed fee, if any, for that period will be made. The downward adjustment will reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended level of effort is less than 100% of that specified in paragraph (a). (For instance, if a hypothetical base-period LOE of 100,000 hours is being reduced to 70,000, the fixed fee shall also be reduced by the same 30%. Using a corresponding hypothetical base-period fixed fee pool of $300,000, the reduced fixed-fee amount is calculated as: $300,000 × (70,000 hours/100,000 hours) = $210,000.) (d) The Government may require the Contractor to provide additional effort up to 110 percent of the level of effort for any period until the estimated cost for that period has been reached. However, this additional effort shall not result in any increase in the fixed fee, if any. (e) If this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contract, the term “fee” in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section means “base fee and incentive fee.” If this is a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract, the term “fee” in paragraphs (c) and (d) means “base fee and award fee.” (f) If the level of effort specified to be ordered during a given base or option period is not ordered during that period, that level of effort may not be accumulated and ordered during a subsequent period. (g) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements of either the “Limitation of Cost” or “Limitation of Funds” clauses. (End of clause)
  8. Don - no. No new contract. Do you believe the overage on hours pushes those extra hours into an out of scope situation as it deviates from the contracted level of effort (hours) and specific time period that the parties originally bargained for? If so, that was my original thinking -- that overproviding hours runs afoul of what the contracting parties bargained for even though there's existing monies on contract.
  9. RetreadFed - Contract is for on-going programming services with the Govt's existing software. There is no delivery of software itself (as a canned product). Vern - there's been a plethora of information provided that coincides nicely with the monetary side of things. As I've said before, that's the easy side of things. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information available as to the level of effort (hourly) portion. Looking to the contract for words that address performance of the level of effort is to no avail as previously indicated. Unfortunately stuck with what's been provided. If you are saying, don't look to a regulation or a contractual clause as this situation is not addressed in either - instead, look to the contract words and how the Government contracted with the Contractor to perform its level of effort (hours) -- then OK, then that's the answer. In my situation, the contract is silent in that arena, apart from the denoted labor cats and hours per labor category as previously mentioned. So looking to a regulation or contract clause is for not. And if this is the case, then there's no prohibition against the Contractor overproviding a level of effort (hours) provided there's existing monies on contract. In which case, bring on the 11th person.
  10. Don, understood. There are enough funds on contract to cover the added cost of bringing on the 11th person (for 960 hours). Aware of the notice requirements which deals with the dollars. Contractor won't exceed the estimated cost, but it will exceed the level of effort (hours). There's enough money on contract to absorb the increase of level of effort (hours) for the 11th person. It's the level of effort (hours) that are at issue.
  11. Vern - there's also 32.704(c). Assume for arguments sake there are enough funds on contract to cover the hourly overage. Otherwise, we'll get bogged down on tangents concerning the dollar side the CPFF (Term) brings. Focus is singularly on the level of effort (hours). Don - what contractual right to payment? I'm thinking the moment the updated software becomes used by the Government is the moment compensation to the Contractor attaches under cost reimbursement principles. Otherwise, Government must reject that work.
  12. No CLIN specific for the labor cats. Applicable Labor CLIN(s) specifies the unit of measure along with a dollar value. And yes, discussions have been had with the Contracting Officer and COR and no objections to bringing on the 11th person. Perhaps it might be easier to re-state the inquiry to its very basics. What happens when a Contractor provides more hours than contracted for under a CPFF (Term)? I can find no regulation, rule or law that prohibits a Contractor from performing more than the contracted hours and if so, what result?
  13. Just fyi, my possible breach scenario mentioned above is only in the unlikely event of failure to show best efforts, which is extremely difficult to achieve. Just wanted to clarify myself.
  14. PoP Jan 1 - Dec 31 (Base) Labor Cat1 1920 (hours) Labor Cat2 1920 (hours) etc. Labor Cat10 1920 (hours) Total Hours 19,200 (hours)
  • Create New...