Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'dpas'.
Found 2 results
-
Here is the scenario (hypothetical). A contractor has contracts with DPAS ratings of DO and some that are unrated. The contractor accepts a subcontract from a prime contractor that has a DX rating. The contractor finds that it would need to shift human resources to the DX work and re-plan work to utilize more of its facilities for the DX work in order to meet the scheduled DX order delivery dates. Doing so would cause cost and schedule impacts on its DO rated and unrated contracts since human resources would be pulled off of those orders and since the facilities that were planned to be utilized to complete the work under the DO and unrated orders will now be used for the DX rated order. The question is, does the contractor have any entitlement if it were to submit an REA or claim for schedule relief and for cost impacts on the DO rated and unrated contracts? There does not seem to be a constructive change in this scenario that would give rise to submitting an REA or claim pursuant to the Changes clause. Are there any other avenues or "remedies" whereby the contractor might be entitled to additional funds / contract value adjustments and schedule adjustments in this scenario .... perhaps a claim for undue burden? If the schedule was accelerated under the DX order or if an order was changed from DO to DX, I could see there being entitlement to an equitable adjustment pursuant to the Changes clause, but that is not the case in this scenario. -
Hello all, Just putting this topic here because I saw a former topic here. (Apologies if it is the incorrect section) It is similar in nature to this thread. In my scenario though, sub has received a rated order. Prime has put the incorrect price (of course, lower) and sub is rejecting the notion of accepting the order as the prime has put incorrect pricing on the order. Prime is arguing that sub MUST accept the rated order and disputes on price can be made at a later date as the sub performs the contract. I have looked at 15 CFR 700. 700.13(c) (1) (under Optional rejection) does not seem it would apply in this case. "If the person placing the order is unwilling or unable to meet regularly established terms of sale or payment;" at least according to person I spoke with at the DCMA. The person did mention that incorrect pricing is a valid argument for not accepting the rated order but could not cite anything. I was hoping anyone here has experience in a similar fact pattern and could advise. I still think that 700.13(c)(1) could be argued to reject the rated order as regularly established terms of sale should include agreement on pricing/payment. Thanks again everyone. Feel free to ask me to clarify or provide further details.