Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. Hi Joel, Given the provision of stop work order, what are all the ways to claim the indirect cost, G&A and profit for the total 120days (not just 30days)?
  2. Hello All, thank for your valuable comments. Let me give some more information about the scenario which I think will provide clarity to all your questions; Our contract is a construction contract and the stop work order was issued under 52.242-15 (AUG 1989). No cares act provision was used. Government reimbursed the actual cost spent by the Contractor on the following items during the stop work period and no other indirect costs or profit was paid; Idle manpower charges (direct works manpower) Idle machinery charges (machineries left at site) Idle site temporary facilities (facilities left at site) Demobilization and remobilization of manpower charges DBA, performance bond and insurance charges for the stop work period No unabsorbed home office overhead cost and profit was paid for the above reimbursed cost of the stop work period No indication on the anticipated cancellation work stop work order was given even after repeated follow-up by the Contractor. Contractor recorded all the idle hours of the items stated in above point#2 through daily report Immediately after the stop work, the site manpower was demobilized to their respective Districts/ States. Once the stop work was cancelled they were remobilized to the site after obtaining necessary Government permits for the movement Stop work period was only 90 days. But the project needed 120 day extension to complete due to the remobilization works required, impact on the material delivery and additional period required to increase the productivity. We submitted an REA for the extended 120 days period for the following costs; Site overhead for the extended period Site temporary facilities cost for the extended period Home office overhead cos for the extended period DBA, performance bond and insurance charges for the extended period Profit for the above costs Whereas, now the Government is agreeing to pay for the items claimed under above point#7 (except profit) only for the excess 30 days (120-90). The Government stand on 120 days claim is, 90 days out of 120 days is part of original Period of Performance (POP), so it must be covered in the original contract price. Since the Government reimbursed the stop work period costs as stated in point#2 above, the Contractor still has the cost to spend for the 90days POP for the items listed in point#7. Hence, please provide your guidance on how to claim all the items stated in point#7 for the total extended 120 days period. Thanks
  3. Hi Vern Hi Thanks for the response. We took all the effort the reduce the cost and the Government wanted to keep the resources readily available to resume the work. So, the idle charges for keeping the people on standby was paid. My question is since 90 days stop work period standby charges are paid, are we eligible to get indirect cost like overhead expenses for the total extended 120 days period or only 30 excess days will be paid (120-90)?
  4. Thanks Joel, I have gone through the FAR provision. My query is since 90days stop work period is claimed already under idle charge, can I submit REA for the total 120days extended period indirect cost ? or the REA will be considered for only for excess 30days (120 - 90days)? Thanks
  5. Hello All, Assume a stop work order is issued in a federal contract due to COVID and last for 90 days. After 90days the client cancelled the SWO. Now the time impact due to the 90days SWO is 120days. In that case, will the contractor eligible to claim the followings as per FAR 52.242-15? Idle charges for the SWO period of 90 days Indirect cost required for the extended period 120days Please provide your thoughts
  6. Culham, Yes all the clarifications were in writing, clarified by the CO during the proposal stage. Below are the extracts from the instruction to offerors: "Any questions related to specific terms and conditions contained within the solicitation should be resolved prior to submission of an offer" "Failing to submit or completely fill out attachments properly may result in rejection of the offer without further evaluation. Therefore, offerors are urged to follow instructions and raise questions through inquiries if instructions are not understood." Please refer the attachment for the instruction to submit the bidder inquiries, all the queries were clarified by the CO during the proposal stage. The written clarification to the inquiries were accessible to all the bidders. So will it be considered as an amendment to the solicitation as per FAR 15.206?
  7. Hi Joel... Let me describe the case clearly. I am from the Contractor side. Original solicitation SOW section states that "The Contractor shall provide and install all communications equipment including but not limited to outside plant conduit, pull-strings, manholes handholes, interior conduit, and junction boxes for future installation of voice/data jacks per the provided plans and specifications" Solicitation drawing shows telecommunication panel in electrical room. But there was no relevant specification for communication system (Div.27). So as guided by the RFP, we asked to clarify the communication scope during the proposal stage vide 'projnet'. The response was " The contractor shall construct communication manholes/handholes and conduit as shown on the plan. The contractor is not responsible for any connections/wiring or telecom equipment" Hence it is clearly understood that there is no telecom equipment required as per the clarification. But this clarification was not updated in the specification/ drawing through an official amendment during the proposal stage. So the final contract drawing and specification have the same old details as mentioned above in the solicitation stage without the modification as clarified. Now during the construction, the COR is demanding for the communication panel as shown on the drawing. When we explained that the communication panel is not required based on the clarification provided during the bid stage, the response from COR was " KTR is to provide actual contract documentation that shows revisions were made to the Specs & Drawings stating that, "the contractor is not responsible for any connection/wiring or telecom equipment". Hope it gives you a clear picture. If you can provide any FAR reference / any case reference to substantiate that the clarifications to the bidders inquiry are part of the contract, that will be great.
  8. Sorry it is my mistake, it should be 'NOT accepting'
  9. In many federal contracts as per the instruction to offerors, during the proposal stage, the bidders are advised to send their questions related to the RFP vide 'projnet' online portal and the same is answered by the Government there itself. This online portal is accessible to all the bidders who are bidding for that project and all the bidders are submitting their offer accordingly. But not all the clarifications given to the bidders inquiry in the projnet portal are updated on the specifications or drawings through an official amendment to the RFP due to the time constraints during the bidding stage. Most of the cases the clarifications are given till the last the minute of the proposal submission. Now the issue here, in general, when the Contract is awarded, the clarifications given vide the projnet, during the proposal stage, are not included as part of the Contract. So, at the time of construction, when scope dispute arises, the CO is NOT accepting the clarifications provided vide projnet during the proposal stage and demanding for the reference shown on any official amendment to the RFP or any reference from the Contract drawings or specifications. So, it will be great, if any one confirm whether the bidders inquiry clarified during the proposal stage is part of the final contract or not?
  • Create New...