Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Here_To_Learn

  1. I have been re-assigned a firm-fixed type contract for the installation of new conference room equipment. The contract consisted of a base period and 2 twelve-month option periods. During the last Option Period (3/30/2022 – 3/29/2023), the Contractor experienced unforeseen delays as a result of supply chain issues with the product manufacturer. The Contractor informed me that they had communicated these unforeseen delays and provided documentation to the former COR and CO and had requested an extension. The Contractor indicated that the previous CO informed their company that the contract would be extended in order to provide sufficient time for their company to complete the installation tasks. Upon receiving the contract re-assignment, I reviewed the contract file documents and noticed that the contract period of performance ended on March 29, 2023. No mod had been executed by the former CO to extend the period of performance. The Contractor and the newly assigned COR contacted me to inquire about the reason for the rejection of the Contractor's invoice. Upon reviewing the invoice, I noticed that the Contractor billed for services rendered beyond 3/29/2023. I met with my supervisor who had been re-assigned this contract to her branch to inform her that the contract period of performance ended and no documentation existed extending the period of performance. After further discussions, my supervisor recommended that I extend the contract so that the contractor could be paid for the services rendered. Since the government received a benefit from these services, my supervisor recommended that I document the file. How is it possible that a contract that ended 6-months ago be extended? Please advise.
  2. In following up on this threaded discussion, the Branch Chief forwarded his recommendation (of modifying the contract type from FFP to T&M) to the Legal Department; however, the Legal Department was not in agreement. Therefore, the contract type remains as FFP. In reviewing the BPA, I noticed that the toner prices listed for each call order do not match the toner prices listed in the BPA. In speaking with the contractor, the contractor stated that due to market fluctuations that are beyond his control, his prices will either decrease or increase for each call order placed. Based on this information, the BPA needs to be modified to reflect a fixed price w/EPA contract type. In addition, the BPA needs to be modified to include all part numbers for toner so that each call order placed will reflect the part numbers for toner established in the BPA. Please share your thoughts.
  3. C Culham, I agree, there is no time or labor for a straight supply. I have recommended that a purchase card be considered for the purchase of the toner and I have requested that the CO (Branch Chief) provide a rationale for his recommendation. Thanks for your recommendation.
  4. The Contract Specialist awarded a firm-fixed price BPA, which consist of a base and four 12-month option periods. The BPA was put in place to allow the Agency to place individual call orders for toner and toner supplies needed throughout the Agency. Under the previous BPA, the program office would obligate funds and purchase toner by drawing down against the funds obligated versus placing individual call orders. This drawing down allowed for a quicker delivery of toner for the program office. When the BPA was renewed (thru Ability One Program), the former CO informed the program office that they could no longer obligate funds and draw down against the funds, but instead place individual call orders on an as-needed-basis. The program office has been following this process; however, due to delays from processing the request to receiving the toner, the Branch Chief (CO) recommended that the Contract Specialist change the contract type from FFP to T&M. The Branch Chief CO's rationale for changing the contract type to T&M - it would expedite the toner process. How is this even possible for a commercial product??? I don't understand the Branch Chief COs rationale. Can someone provide an explanation? I would greatly appreciate it.
  5. J.Hoffman and C.Culham, thank you for providing the reference. Just to be clear, aside from the ordering procedures contained in FAR Part 16.505, there may be some parts of FAR Part 15 applicable to GWACs? J.Hoffman - Yes, we encouraged discounts in the RFP and the Offeror proposed.
  6. An RFP was set-aside to Small Disadvantaged Veteran Owned Businesses (SDVOB) and released to five Contract Holders on NITAAC for IT Support. The RFP was posted for 30 days; however, only one offer was received. I understand that NITAAC orders follow the procedures under FAR Part 16.505; however, there is no language in the ordering procedures that addresses when only one offer is received in response to an RFP. My question is: Is FAR Part 15 applicable to orders placed against a GWAC? I am asking because I need clarification on whether a determination and finding is required (FAR 15.403) to document the existence of adequate price competition when only one offer is received. Any feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
  • Create New...