Jump to content

Navy_Contracting_4

Members
  • Posts

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Navy_Contracting_4

  1. KMY, as I understand your question and scenario, you have loaded rates (through total cost and not including fee) and a fixed fee amount per labor hour, and want to use these to establish the estimated cost and fixed fee for individual task orders. For example: Labor Cat 1 400 hours @ $40/hour - $ 16,000 Labor Cat 2 800 hours @ $50/hour - $ 40,000 Labor Cat 3 1,600 hours @ $70/hour - $112,000 Total Estimated Cost - $168,000 Fixed Fee @ $4/hour - $ 11,200 Total Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee - $179,200 With the estimated cost and fixed fee now established for the Task Order, it would proceed as any other cost-reimbursement Task Order, with payment in accordance with the "Allowable Cost and Payment" clause. If this desciption of your scenario is correct, I think your approach is acceptable, even recognizing that the actual cost per hour for each labor category may fluctuate over the course of the ordering period.
  2. No, you are correct. Due to the fact that there is no provision in cost-reimbursement contracts for price adjustment on account of annual wage determinations being incorporated into the contract, offerors need to include escalation on their labor rates, to the extent they believe their actual rates in the out-years will be higher than current rates.
  3. There is nothing I know of that precludes Contracting Officials from applying all or part of FAR Part 15 to GSA Buys; they're just not required to. The solicitation must set forth whatever procedures that will be followed, and then you must be careful to follow those procedures.
  4. I think when Joel and I read you have a FFP contract (and, we assume, indefinite quantity), we expect that it contains fixed prices for the items that may be ordered, and so wonder initially why you need to get quotes. I'm now getting the sense that your contract is so broad that the parties can't identify every item that might be needed, and so plan to negotiate firm fixed prices for each order. I also conclude that the government is going to do a cost analysis, and thus expects you to provide some form of cost or pricing data, i.e., vendor quotes, etc. What does the contract say about pricing orders? I believe that you're on safe ground getting quotes for quantity one, issuing a PO for quantity ten at your own risk, and using the savings to mitigate your risk. If the same item is ordered again, though, you will have to tell the government the price you actually paid for the quantity ten PO. Pricing the second order using quotes for quantity two, or using the same price from the first order when you actually will be providing an item from stock would be a misrepresentation.
  5. I believe in acting within the limits of my authority, and compliance with the regulations, as required by the FAR and my warrant. I would revisit the issue with management and explain why compliance with the rule is mandatory. I would not issue a solicitation or contract that was knowingly not in compliance with the FAR or DFARS.
  6. Don't confuse "exemption" with "applicability." FAR 22.1003-1 says, "This Subpart 22.10 applies to all Government contracts, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees, except as exempted in 22.1003-3 and 22.1003-4 of this section, or any subcontract at any tier thereunder. [emphasis added]" If the principal purpose of your contract is to furnish services in the United States through the use of employees that are not service employees (for example, professional employees), then FAR Subpart 22.10 does not apply, and you you don't need an exemption. Exemptions are needed only for contracts the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees.
  7. I agree with Vern, not because "it's too much work," but because when a final DFARS rule is published and effective immediately, then everyone subject to the DFARS is obligated to comply with it. FAR 1.602-1 says: "1.602-1 Authority. "(a) Contracting officers have authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. Contracting officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them. Contracting officers shall receive from the appointing authority (see 1.603-1) clear instructions in writing regarding the limits of their authority. Information on the limits of the contracting officers’ authority shall be readily available to the public and agency personnel. "(b ) No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. [emphasis added]" DFARS is one of the regulations that DoD contracting officers must comply with, so if you don't, then you may be operating outside the scope of your authority.
  8. Yes, it is permissible to deviate from the clause, but a deviaton from the FAR requires higher level approval, the level being dependent on which agency you're dealing with.
  9. If you want a definition for the word "necessary," look it up in the dictionary. In the FAR, "ndefined words retain their common dictionary meaning." [FAR 1.108(a).]
  10. The reason the GAO decided that “regular procurement procedures should have been followed” in the Carroll-Donahue case was because it didn’t fall within the purview of a cited Army regulation providing for training to “be authorized and certification for reimbursement accomplished by an appropriate training official using DD Form 1556” [since replaced by the SF-182], in that it wasn’t a course “offered at a fixed price at an announced date, time and location by colleges, universities, professional associations, or groups which are open to the public.” The Army reg also says that “[t]raining which costs less than $10,000 does not have to be submitted to a contracting officer.” Wasn’t $10,000 the SAT in 1983? I think it’s clear from the decision that if the course had met the criteria in the Army reg, as interpreted by the GAO, then it would have been authorized, so I conclude that there is some training for which the SF-182 may be used “to obligate funds, contract for training, and certify payment,” as the OPM Handbook says. The entire scope of that authority, though, is not completely clear – witness the GAO’s admonition to the Army in the final paragraph of its decision: “The Department of the Army may wish to consider amending [its reg] so that it will more clearly set out the intended scope of authority for approval of training by use of DD Form 1556.” Any Army folks out there who can tell us if Section 9-33 of AR 37-107 was amended in response to this decision?
  11. Then why is your company paying any fee at all? How can one tell it isn't a cost-only, no-fee, contract? Personally, I'd be more concerned with a finance office that pays an invoice for something not mentioned in the PO, than I would be about the possible appearance of a CPPC contract.
  12. What aspect of a FFP construction contract are you looking to have audited?
  13. So would it be correct to infer from this response that you've already allocated the development costs to government contracts during the time the costs were incurred? If so, then haven't you already recouped them, albeit indirectly? If not, how were these costs accounted for? Are you expecting to sell these items to the government on a sole-source basis, under which you'll be providing certified cost or pricing data?
  14. The $1M threshold applies to "acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack." If your acquisition is not supporting a contingency operation, then you can't use the authority, notwithstanding the fact that you are located in a country where a contingency operation is being conducted.
  15. FAR Case 2010-003 was closed without action when the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC) and the Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR) Council could not reach agreement. Subsequently, the DAR Council decided to open a case of their own, but it, too, was closed without action, when the parties could not agree on a unified position.
  16. In paragraph ( c )(6)(ii) of the clause, it exempts "fibers and yarns that are for use in synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric (but does apply to the synthetic or coated synthetic fabric itself), if—...[t]he fibers and yarns are para-aramid fibers and continuous filament para-aramid yarns manufactured in a qualifying country."
  17. How is the statement of work structured? Can it be interpreted consistent with a completion form? Many statements of work I've seen don't make sense except in a level-of-effort environment.
  18. Have you considered a bailment agreement? As Vern implies, you will need to be careful not to give this one firm an unfair competitive advantage, though. Are there other firms who have equipment that might be competitive?
  19. Contracts b/t USG and prime contractors for R&D would include FAR 52.249-6, Termination (Cost-Reimbursement).
  20. Please double check. One of the payment clauses called out in FAR 32.111 must be in the contract. The simplest answer is that generally, the contractor gets paid after the supplies or services have been delivered and accepted.
  21. The actual law can be found at Public Law 112-36. It contains the same Section 106.
  22. If your contract states that "the total amount of the contract shall not exceed $1M," I don't understand how one can argue that placing an order that will cause the amount of the contract to exceed $1M is OK. I can understand how one could argue that making a change to an ongoing order is allowed, even if the result causes the total contract amount to exceed the ceiling, but I think placing a new order would not be allowed.
×
×
  • Create New...