Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

5,154 profile views
  1. The Gov't added "and prices". Specifically, the USACE. Basically a paragraph that said something along the lines of: in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates and prices specified in the contract. And then they went on to add that it applies to task orders as well. Good point on raising the issue during the solicitation phase. I think in this case, we simply didn't notice it until after award. Thanks
  2. Thanks, all. I appreciate the guidance. While I did use hypothetical scenarios, my company is dealing with some real life situations related to this clause. We've seen in more than one of our contracts with the Gov't language related, but in addition to, FAR 52.217-8 that states"...at rates and prices specified in the contract" [emphasis added]. So I wanted to make sure I understood how FAR 52.217-8 is supposed to work, and what rights it gives the Gov't, given the addition of "and prices" that we've seen in our contracts. We've also had a Prime try to force us to keep working for an additional 6 months at no additional cost. When we pushed back, they cited this clause, which was flowed down to us from their prime contract. I was pretty confident they were misinterpreting the clause, but wanted to ask here to be sure. Again, I appreciate everyone's guidance and expertise!
  3. Well, this was a hypothetical scenario, but why don't we just say they're based on the completion of definable and measurable steps, which are considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the stated performance objectives.
  4. Interim invoices. Milestone payments in accordance with an approved Milestone Payment Schedule.
  5. Any thoughts on how this might be handled in FFP service contracts that are awarded on a lump sum basis and don't contain any contract rates?
  6. FAR 52.217-8 states, in part, that "The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months." Scenario: FFP IDIQ contract that includes FAR 52.217-8. The contract includes various labor categories and rates. The contractor submits a proposal for a task order which consists of 100 hours of engineering support at the contract rate of $150/hour for a total proposed price of $15,000. Period of performance is 12 months. The Gov't issues a modification prior to the end of the POP to extend the task order by 3 months and cites FAR 52.217-8. Question #1: Does this option clause obligate the contractor to continue providing the engineering support services for another 3 months at no additional cost to the Gov't? Or, is the contractor simply obligated to continue working under the $150/hr rate for the 3-month extension, but with a price increase to account for the additional hours? Let's say the 3-month extension translates to an additional 20 hours. Would the Gov't be required to increase the price by $3,000? In other words, when the clause states that "the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract", does "rates" really mean "rates", or does it actually mean "price"? Question #2: If the answer to Question #1 is that "yes, rates means rates", how is the level of effort determined for the extension period(s) given that the option can be exercised unilaterally?
  7. Scenario: We have a large remediation contract that contains both an SCA wage determination and a Davis-Bacon wage determination. Most of the work we do under this contract is service work, but there is some construction work occasionally that's subject to the DBA. Part of the remediation work under our contract requires drilling for, and installation of, monitoring wells as part of an environmental remediation system. We've previously determined that the drilling and subsequent installation of the monitoring wells is NOT subject to the DBA primarily because the wells are temporary and will be either abandoned and/or filled in after the monitoring is complete and the remediation system is decommissioned, and as such, are not "works" because they are not improvements. Note that our SCA WD includes a labor category of "well drilller" and our DBA WD includes a labor category of "drill operator". The DBA "drill operator" wage is quite a bit higher than the "well driller" wage. To add to the confusion, and what is causing me to reevaluate this, is that I just noticed that the DBA WD includes "Environmental Remediation" and "Monitoring Well" in its labor classification description of "Laborer". I've spent a lot of hours researching this issue and can't seem to find anything definitive, and I've read some conflicting information in various guidance documents and the like. Does anyone have any guidance or information that might be helpful in determining whether SCA or DBA applies to this type of work?
  8. Question: Does the prime contract scope or the subcontract scope determine wage requirements of the subcontract? Our prime contract includes both a DBA WD and an SCA WD. The subcontract we're issuing is for well drilling services. We previously determined (for various reasons) that this type of well drilling is not "construction work". However, our drilling subcontractor thinks that DBA should apply to their subcontract. Is the applicability of DBA vs SCA dependent on the Prime's scope of work and specific facts surrounding the drilling work, or is it strictly based on the subcontractor's scope, which is essentially just "drilling of wells"?
  9. This is an IDIQ with USACE. It seems that you're suggesting Option #1, correct?
  10. The Gov’t has defined “fully loaded labor rates” as direct rates plus applicable indirects. So the price to the Gov’t prior to adding profit. Same applies with the Sub rates.
  11. This isn’t a T&M or LH contract. It’s a FFP IDIQ with maximum labor rates to be used when pricing FFP task orders.
  12. We have an FFP A/E IDIQ contract that includes a list of "maximum fully loaded labor rates for the Prime and Subcontractors". We've been selected to provide a price proposal for a Task Order and we're in the process of setting up a subcontract with "Sub A". My question pertains to what is acceptable (allowable?) when it comes to the labor rates we use to price the TO proposal. If, for example, we're using "Sub A" for a particular labor category in which our maximum contract rate is $150/hr, but Sub A has proposed a rate of $125/hr, are we able to still use our $150 max contract rate to build up our price, or would we need to use Sub A's actual rate of $125? Alternatively, is Sub A allowed to build their price using our $150/hr contract rate even though their actual cost is $125/hr? Also, provided Sub A's person meets the qualifications for this particular labor category, do we even need to disclose to the Gov't that we're subcontracting out that particular labor category? Note that this is a FFP/lump sum TO estimated at $150K where labor is only a portion of the price. Also worth noting is that Sub A provided its $125/rate during the RFP phase for the base award, but because this was an overlapping labor category (in that it is one in which both us as the Prime and Sub A may use), we proposed our higher rate of $150/hr because the Gov't said they only wanted one rate for each labor category. It seems that there are three ways to handle this: 1. Propose the sub's actual rate of $125/hr. 2. Propose the max contract rate of $150/hr but issue a subcontract to Sub A with their originally-proposed rate of $125/hr, in which case we as the Prime would keep the difference as profit. 3. Propose the max contract rate of $150/hr and issue a subcontract to Sub A with the max contract rate of $150/hr, in which case Sub A would keep the difference as profit. Thanks in advance.
  13. UPDATE: GSA just issued an amendment to clarify that the Mentor Protege agreement has to be approved prior to submission of the offer, not the Joint Venture agreement. Disregard my original post--I was wrong. The regulation states that the Mentor-Protege Agreement has to be approved prior to award. I thought I had read that the Mentor-Protege Joint Venture agreement had to be approved prior to award. Huge oversight on my part.
  14. Wow--interesting. Thanks for this reference. I have read this section before but didn't catch what I think you're pointing out, which is this part, correct?: If the procurement is to be awarded through the 8(a) BD program, SBA must approve the joint venture pursuant to § 124.513. This does have an impact on my analysis in that it seems to create some ambiguity and confusion by contradicting 124.520(d)(1)(i)). 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3)(iii) first references 124.520 but then jumps to § 124.513 when discussing approval of the joint venture, when it seems they should have instead referenced 124.520. I still think that there's a distinction in the regulations between the requirements for 8(a) Joint Ventures and 8(a) Mentor Protege Joint Ventures; however, this apparent oversight by SBA that you've pointed out does confuse the issue and may give interested parties a better chance of succeeding in a solicitation protest. And I can almost guarantee that this RFP will get protested for this very issue.
  • Create New...