Navy_Contracting_4

In my experience, independent COs have some oversight, providing checks and balances and addressing ethics issues. For example, depending on the dollar value of the deal at issue, PNMs would typically require some pre-award review/approval at a level higher than the person conducting the negotiation.

Everything Vern says is true. However, if "the Contractor demonstrates that performance or cost clearly indicates that the Contractor will earn a fee significantly above the target fee, [emphasis added]," and after considering Vern's advice about the sometimes fleeting nature of underruns, you still think payment at a higher rate is appropriate, then I would suggest that the contractor request that the order be modified to so provide. The contractor isn't allowed to invoice at a rate other than that provided in the order, so the order must be modified.

Wel, one issue would be that it kind of brings into question how "independent": the IGCE is

Vern, Yes, I understand about BOAs and how they differ from subcontracts. That's why I told Looking (see my post from Wednesday at 11:08 AM) that in his scenario, certified cost or pricing data would be required. In the post for which you took me to task, I postulated an alternative scenario – one in which there was a binding subcontract not a BOA – and suggested that in that scenario, cost or pricing data would not be required in conjunction with issuing orders. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

Vern, Well, I obviously didn't "know," as you have explained why I was wrong, but since the order would be FFP., it would likely be FFP level-of-effort, in which case, wouldn't it be comparable to ordering supplies at set prices?

Then I think we're stuck with FAR !5.404-3(c), which says as well as FAR 15.404-3(b)(3): So it sounds to me like the subcontractor in your scenario is required by 15.404-3(c) to submit certified cost or pricing data, and thus the prime is required by 15.404-3(b)(3) to obtain it from the sub and submit it "as part of its own certified cost or pricing data." ...unless an exception in 15.403-1(b) applies.

Do the teammates have binding subcontracts under which they must accept orders for labor at specified rates?

Or perhaps there is an actual subcontract in place ("the IDQ") that sets out "contractual rates" under the terms of which the prime may issue unilateral orders for specified numbers of hours of various labor categories, and the sub is bound to perform. In that circumstance, I don't think certified cost or pricing data would be required.

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that there is at least a general policy that the government is not to compete with private industry when industry has the capability to provide the needed goods or services, so I think that in order for the government to sell to private parties, some specific authority is needed. See, for example, 10 USC 2563. I know this isn't an answer to your question about flowdown of clauses, but perhaps it gets you headed in a direction where you can find an answer. I expect that the government is not likely to agree to flowdown of FAR clauses in any agreement to sell products or services to private industry, but if there was a particular term or condition that you felt was important to include, you could suggest it and see if they would agree or not.

While I don't have a better answer, I think it unlikely that your equation is what is intended, because ((A+B+C)/D)*D = A+B+C, thus taking the contract price out of the calculation, and it seems to me that it wouldn't be described the way it is if that were the case. Actually, I could come up with a complicated description for the payment problem, but I don't think I'd be able to determine the amount to be retained by paragraph (c), since it says " The Government will retain . . . an amount estimated or approved by the Contracting Officer under paragraph (b) of this clause," yet I find no mention of a retention in paragraph (b). Possibly, someone who knows about DFARS 217.71 MARAVs, which I don't, can explain, but I think it would take a lot of explaining to get me to understand.

Retread, Regarding your first issue, this is pure speculation, but it sounds to me like they overlooked the performance periods for the option items, and may be expecting to exercise them within 60 days after the original base period of performance (i.e. November 29) with a performance period of December 1 - November 30. Now would be a good time to clarify with the CO what the government's intentions are, because I think your concerns are valid, and there could be problems if they're not addressed early.. Suppose the government thinks that by changing the base period of performance to run through November 30, the option exercise date is likewise extended to January 29, 2017? Second, it seems to me that as a contractor, you are safe in relying on the CO's extension, if your concern is the ultimate allowability of costs of performance between October 1 and November 30, notwithstanding the propriety, or lack thereof, of the government's actions, so to that extent, I'm thinking you may be over-reacting. I haven't had the time to look into the propriety of extending the base period of performance as you describe to take advantage of the 10 USC 2410a authority.

Boof, How would you propose to deal with the situations that the ratification process handles now?

Are you planning to terminate the contract, or is there still a need for the services?

apsofacto, Which laws would you like to see repealed? Which regulations would you like to see removed?

Lara, I suggest you ask the contracting officer what is expected. Since that is who will be receiving the quote, (s)he is the best person to tell you what (s)he needs.