here_2_help

I'm certainly no expert, but wouldn't a letter to the contractor--issued prior to 01 October--informing the contractor that the Government intends to exercise the option on or about 01 October be sufficient, especially if the contractor agrees?

I reviewed the overhauled FAR Part 31. I saw no significant changes. None. Zero. I think there was maybe one or two sentences lined-out and some references were deleted. A missed opportunity to move the government away from prescriptive rules, in my view. Anybody see things differently?

That is the crux of the problem for many contractors. How does one quantify the impact for an individual contract if the cost is indirect? What if not all contracts are FFP? What if not all contracts contain the clause? It's a hairball of an issue.

To me, the key point here is that the subcontractor has completed work and delivered the product to the prime contractor. Accordingly, I would expect the prime to liquidate all progress payments made to the subK to date and make full FFP payment to the subK for the delivered goods. At that point, all costs paid to the subK are now prime contractor costs, and should be included in the prime's progress payment requests in accordance with the terms of the prime contract (i.e., 90% of costs incurred are eligible for reimbursement). That's my take, even though the original poster has moved on.

I believe the contractor has encountered an "after-imposed tax" (as defined in 52.229-6) and, therefore, is entitled to an appropriate price adjustment based on additional costs that were unforeseen at the time of contract formation by both parties.

I beg to differ. I assert there was no "smoking gun" COFC CAS case. Review boards were instituted to: (a) ensure "consistency" in KO decisions across the agency; and (b) provide coverage to KOs from adverse IG and GAO reports. Properly trained KOs who perform their job well and document their decisions do not need review boards. In fact, KOs spent far too many hours preparing their review packages for those boards. Pre-negotiation reviews. Post-negotiation reviews. An utter waste of everybody's time.

Problem: The proliferation of "review boards" at DCMA that review many decisions made by warranted contracting officers has created another bureaucracy within the bureaucracy. As a result, decisions take months longer to implement than should be the case. Scale: 5 of 7 Proposed Solution: Eliminate all review boards at DCMA. Instead, give warranted contracting officers authority inherent in their position to make business decisions on behalf of DoD. Hold them accountable as individuals for the quality of their decisions. Signed "Still Waiting for My FPRA to Be Approved by a Review Board Six Months After Submittal, Two Months After DCAA Audit, and Six Weeks After Handshake"

How do you know this? What regulation or contract clause requires this? Please be specific. If what you are saying is that "A contractor must include paid time off hours in its calculations of hours worked in order to determine whether or not OT has been worked" then that seems to be a different thing than what you posted. Regardless, OT laws vary state by state. In what state is the work being performed? What does that state's labor laws require regarding your question?

Labor laws, including overtime rules, vary by state. The contractor will be expected to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Regardless of what the government negotiates, the contractor will (or should) incur labor costs in compliance with the rules in the locality in which it is working. Trying to establish rules such as "reimbursable work starts when the contractor sets foot on the site" may be contrary to the legal reality. To be clear, that position may work when the contractor is commuting to the site, but not when the contractor is traveling to the site.

Re: the solicitation It's been a long time since I had to respond to a solicitation, but this one seems ... off-kilter. I would rate it a 4 out of 10. It's clear. It's clear that this one would not be something I would respond to. The synopsis says they "require[] a Facilities Maintenance Services person" but the PWS details somebody who does a heckuva lot more than just maintenance services. The right person needs to be able to operate a brand-specific building maintenance system, install new and replacement HVAC and process equipment, have the ability to read and interpret technical drawings, schematics, and manuals (of an unknown nature), must possess an EPA certification in HVAC plus an HVAC technical certification from an accredited institution (which I assume would be a community college but it's not specified). Plus maintain accountability of government-furnished materials. That's just the "required stuff". In addition, it would be desirable (which may be several unstated evaluation factors) to: have experience with Powers Process Control Language (whatever that is), have a certification in building automation programming, have a BACnet Operator certification, have an electrical certification, and have experience with control system integration. All that screams far more than simply a "Facilities Maintenance Services person". It makes me think they are looking for a pseudo-employee to basically take-over the entire HVAC system. If I were considering responding to this, I would pass. I would assume they tailored the requirements to the individual they already want to hire contract with. I would guess they know someone who recently departed that exact same position; either through retirement or other means. I wouldn't waste my time or funds trying to win this opportunity.

In the podcast, Vern pitched his recurring them of "mastery" -- a truly worthy goal for all of us. After 40 years of being in this environment, my sense is that less than one percent of all acquisition professionals want to aspire to mastery ... and less than one-tenth of that amount will ever reach it. The rest will wait to be told what to do.

That is always a worthy thing to worry about. My feeling is that, so long as the supplier does sign within a reasonable time then you should be okay, especially if you can show you are checking the list of parties excluded (or whatever it's called today). However, if you never obtain a signature, then yes, I would think you would be at risk for a finding. Relying solely on annual reps & certs would not be sufficient, in my opinion.

Also see FAR 31.205-7 ("Contingencies") especially ( c )(1)

The OFPP Administrator better get on this! Remind me again ...who is the Administrator?

Seems to me that the Army intends to compete each individual task order anyway, Vern. I don't see any time savings; in fact, I see duplicate efforts (one competition for the 13 awardees; a 2nd competitive for each task order). As to your second point, are you implying that the acquisition strategy is based on protest avoidance? If so, then that is ... sad.