.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'claim'.
Found 6 results
-
In situations where the contractor continues to provide services (ie, cell phone services) after the purchase order has expired and submits an invoice, would the contractor need to submit a claim in accordance with FAR 33.206 in order to be paid? FAR 1.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments would not apply (I don't think) because a government representative did not authorize (verbally or in writing) the continuation of services.
-
Is the Government accepting “free” work if a Contractor chooses not to submit a claim when such a claim is justified by a Government delay and a change in SOW (out of convenience not necessity) and the CO anticipates no reason for refusal of such a claim? -
I've received an REA for an amount greater than $100K, but it does not have the claim certification verbiage. (Contractor either forgot or is not familiar with FAR guidance on claims and didn't include it.) Should I ask the contractor to include the appropriate verbiage so it fully meets a claim definition and can be properly treated as one? With the exception of the certification not being included, the REA meets all other requirements of a claim, and I am inclined to treat it as one. Any input would be appreciated!
-
I've been looking at 52.242-17, Government Delay of Work. The prescription states that the clause is optional when a fixed-price contract is contemplated for services, or for supplies that are commercial or modified-commercial items. It also states that the clause is not applicable if the contract otherwise specifically provides for an equitable adjustment because of the delay or interruption; e.g when the changes clause is applicable. However, the changes clause (52.243-1) doesn't address delay or interruption, only changes in 1) drawings, designs, or specs (when supplies are to specially manufactured for gov in accordance with drawings, designs or specs), 2) method of shipment or packing and 3) place of delivery. So, this leads me to believe if we don't have 52.242-17 on contract, then the disputes clause (52.233-1) applies with regard to any government delays. Which got me to thinking, if a fixed-price contract is contemplated for services (or supplies that are commercial or modified commercial), would 52.242-17 be preferable in the contract to address any government delays as opposed to being left with only the disputes clause? Assuming I've made the right connections here, there seem to pluses and minuses with each clause. What do you all think?
-
In the event of an unauthorized commitment where the COR directed the contractor to perform the work not called for/funded by the contract (CR), where the CO doesn't feel that the commitment meets the requirements for ratification set forth in FAR 1.602©(3) and refuses to ratify, what are the options for the government and contractor? Specifically, the contractor can submit a claim or sue the government, but can the contractor take action against the COR specifically? Can the government take action against the COR, holding them liable for the amount of the unauthorized commitment? Are there any cases or examples where this has occurred? -
I was reading Don's post "is this a claim?" and I know of claims and ratifications, but i found I couldn't distinguish the two. I asked a few people around my office, but I cant get two answers that are the same. I read a few articles, but I cant seem to grasp the difference, so my question is, can someone explain the difference between a ratification and a claim, and by explain I mean break it down barney style because its just not clicking in my head. This is the arbitrary example that two different CO's gave to try and explain the difference to me, and depending on who I asked, it can be a claim or a ratification. Contractor comes on the 1st of every month to perform preventative maintenance on a specialized piece of equipment. Contractor comes in on October 1st and performs the maintenance; however, the service contract expired on September 30th and a new contract was not established. Putting aside the contract expired, the service was still needed. My question to the CO's in response to the arbitrary scenario, "would anything change if someone specifically called the contractor to come perform this service, or if the contractor just performed the service without anyone telling them to?" Again, 2 different CO's, both gave me identical examples with different answers.