Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'services'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • NIH NITAAC Blog

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. I am working on a follow on IDIQ for general support services ( not Advisory and Assistance Service or IT) and historically like the current generation the Base IDIQ had a 5 year base and no options with TO's awarded with a one year base and 4 one year options. My thought process right now is why don't we do a 5 year base+ one 5 year option and to be compliant with the FAR when it comes to the TO's to then re-compete the TO's as needed for the option period and perhaps not exercise the option for underperforming contractors and have an open season to bring on new contractors as needed to compete. I don't think for the TO's we could have a similar structure and that they would need to be rec-competed? Currently and in the past, planning would commence towards the end of year 3 and I think it would be save immense resources if we could save a lot time with the scenario I outlined above. The value for 5 years is about 700 MM, so with the option period I outlined it would have a value of over a billion and thus require more oversight and sign offs ( which some people would rather avoid). Thoughts? Any examples of similar IDIQ's with such a structure? Thanks!
  2. I want to run this by the forum to get a check on my reading of the new Executive Order issued on April 27, requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to pay a minimum wage of $15 per hour to workers on a range of covered contracts for procuring services and construction. It supersedes the 2014 Obama EO that is implemented at FAR Subpart 22.19. That rule only applies to contracts covered by the Service Contract Act (for services) and the Davis Bacon Act (for construction)(see 22.903, "Applicability"). I read the new EO as applying to all contracts for services, including SCA and DBA-covered contracts. This would be an expansion to the current coverage. I base this on section 8 which defines covered contracts as (A) contracts for services or construction, or (B) contracts for services covered by the SCA, or others at (C) and (D). The only other requirement is that it applies to contacts covered by the FLSA, which frankly applies to almost everything. Here's my problem: several law firms have sent out alerts on the new EO, but none of them have noted the expansion that I am reading in it. Since SCA-covered services are a subset of all possible contracts for services, it would seem this is worth a comment. How does anyone here read the coverage of the new EO? Executive Order on Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors _ The White House.pdf
  3. I am working on a enterprise service contract follow on effort for a DoD 4th Estate agency, and looking for any enterprise service RFP's that you can share the RFP link from beta.sam.gov. The RFP can be for a multiple award IDIQ ,single awardee, or anything in between. It can be from a non DoD agency as well. The purpose of casting this wide net is to get ideas, see any innovative source selection methods etc. If your RFP/program requires fully burdened labor rates, even better! If a link isn't available from beta.sam.gov and you'd need to email me the RFP, send me a message and I will provide you with my work email. Thanks in advance!
  4. Is it okay to contract for full-time long-term support? I was raised in DoD contracting and now work for a civilian agency. I know that DoD 1102s have to deal with 100 times the regulations we do in the civilian agencies and sometimes- even 6 years out - I am still wrapped up in the policies I was raised on. That said, the other day I got a SOW that declared they needed 3 clerks 40 hours each week (for a program I’ve just inherited in a reorganization). I had a nice call with the COR and explained she was augmenting government staff and we would need to change the requirements for this reason. She responded that they have been handling it this way for more than 20 years, which I thought supported my case but I cannot find anything to support me, as they are not inherently governmental functions and aren’t treated as personal services. What am I missing?
  5. I work at a small civilian Bureau, have to run the Purchase card program for our state, and I am aware the Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) was recently increased for some categories of requirements up to $10,000. However, on another forum post last year regarding an $11,000 tree removal requirement and using vendors not in SAM, another forum user suggested I negotiate down to the newer/higher $10,000 MPT, so it could be put on a Purchase card. At the time (FY-end madness) I thought that was odd, but didn't follow back up then. My Bureau's leadership insists that only some services have an MPT of $10,000, if they are exempted from a $2,500 threshold per 41 USC Chapter 67. The only services that we currently exempt are those that we determine to be professional or creative, per 29 CFR 541.301. When I first started, I inherited our entire state's Purchase card program, which was right after the MPT was increased, during high staff turnover, and a switch to a new card vendor; cue mass confusion. I met with other CO's and a Dept of Labor wage specialist, and the determination (and guidance from above us in the Bureau) was that all "blue-collar", or non-professional and non-creative services, are subject to SCLS / SCA / FLSA and have only a $2,500 MPT. In short, right now at my Bureau, every blue collar requirement over $2,500 cannot go on a Purchase card and must be a contract (or order off an existing vehicle). The $2,500 amount is first mentioned in FAR 2.101, where it's spelled out as: [The MPT] means $10,000, except it means- (1) For acquisitions of construction subject to 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), $2,000; (2) For acquisitions of services subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards, $2,500; (3) For acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation....[yada yada] The only other time the $2,500 amount is explicitly referenced again is in FAR 22, with a general emphasis being that Service contracts over $2,500 have to have certain Clauses, Previsions, Wage Determinations, and other relevant attachments. Otherwise, just "micro-purchase threshold" is used throughout FAR 5, 6, 12, 13, etc. My question: is my Bureau wrong about the "blue collar" rule, in which non-professional / non-creative services all still have just a $2,500 MPT? I looked at 41 USC Chapter 67, which has these exemptions under para. (b): (b) Exemptions.—This chapter does not apply to— (1) a contract of the Federal Government or the District of Columbia for the construction, alteration, or repair, including painting and decorating, of public buildings or public works; (2) any work required to be done in accordance with chapter 65 of this title; (3) a contract for the carriage of freight or personnel by vessel, airplane, bus, truck, express, railway line or oil or gas pipeline where published tariff rates are in effect; (4) a contract for the furnishing of services by radio, telephone, telegraph, or cable companies, subject to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); (5) a contract for public utility services, including electric light and power, water, steam, and gas; (6) an employment contract providing for direct services to a Federal agency by an individual; and (7) a contract with the United States Postal Service, the principal purpose of which is the operation of postal contract stations. The Chapter 65 exemption referenced therein refers to Supplies requirements. Administering the Purchase card program is honestly the bane of my professional existence...whether it is cardholders splitting purchases, cardholders begging to exempt things from the $2,500 MPT, Ratifications in the $9k-$11k range, and PR's in the $2,500 - $10k range - this eats up SUBSTANTIAL hours of my and other CO's time. If the Services MPT was just uniformly $10k, life would be remarkably easier, and I could spend much less time on these abundant low dollar value requirements. It would also make a lot of sense....so I assume that's not how the regs work, and my Bureau's current policy is right. However, I assume that the comments on my other post were just made in error, and my determinations so far, and my Bureau's leadership's determinations, are in fact correct and many services still have only a $2,500 MPT.
  6. So we have multiple new service contracts and option periods that started 1 Oct. We received certified funding documents covering the entire option period or base periods for these contracts on 1 October and awarded or exercised options at that time, fully funding the year. Recently, the customers came back, asking to have the obligated funds reduced down to the CR authority that they received, and to incrementally fund for the rest of the year as they receive more funding. We are unsure what happened in the decision process that these were certified when they weren't sure how much would be received. None of these contracts were awarded with the appropriate clauses or CLIN structure for incremental funding. My questions are: Is there anything stopping us from reducing the obligation to the CR amount after the fact? (besides the many hours of overtime I'll have to requests for my folks to complete such an undertaking). If not, would we need to work out the incremental funding (CLIN structure, clauses etc) on each contract before making the reduction, or could we complete it all in one action? Further: Is it possible this is an ADA violation on the person certifying the funds? I would think that the entire Wing/MAJCOM and possible, the AF would have to be over spent for there to be a true ADA violation, but am I wrong? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can lend!
  7. This might seem a strange question but should our purchase orders, delivery orders and contracts for services contain a Freight on Board (FOB) designation on the documents? The issue came up because of our contract writing system defaulting to "destination" on services. They were trying to match up the contract system and the finance systems and wanted to know all the correct standard delivery terms. I gave them FAR 47.303 to list all the possible combinations. Someone suggested creating a new one - "Service Contract Only - No FOB terms" . This is not a FAR definition. Would we have to have a FAR deviation to add it to our writing system? Should we have a FOB for services? What does other agency contract writing systems put in the FOB block when it is services? By the way, we use Momentum Acquisitions as the writing system.
  8. Good afternoon. I am wondering if services can be added to a pre-existing mutiple award supply BPA, if those services are a necessary component of the supplies. According to FAR 37.102(a)(1), agencies can acquire services under a supply contract, but I am wondering if the same applies to a pre-existing BPA that does not have those services as part of the BPA. An example could be a BPA for software that requires training for new users, but the training was not included as part of the BPA itself.
  9. We are a telecommunications provider to the US Government and provide terrestrial data circuits to remote, and sometimes hostile, regions in the world. Under a 12-month contract, the Government requested a proposal for 12 months of service. The circuit is not considered accepted and billable until the Government performs its testing IAW the acceptance criteria. Given the regions we deliver service to, it is normal for circuit activation and testing to take three or more months from execution of a subcontract agreement to the activation and testing of the circuit. The salient points are: 1. The Government contracted for a terrestrial data circuit with a certain number of Megabits per second (Mbps) at a certain location specified in the SOW. 2. The period of performance was 5/1/15 – 4/30/16. 3. In Section B, the Unit specified was “EA,” and the quantity is “From 0.0000” “By 1.0000” to “To 1.0000” 4. The contract type was fixed price incentive in accordance with FAR Part 16.202. 5. We provided the Mbps to the locations specified in the contract beginning in November 2015. There are opinions internally whether we can bill the full amount based on service being provided for twelve months, even though the service was only accepted at month six or not. Terrestrial carriers (e.g. Verizon, Level3, etc.) typically require a 12 month commitment, so even though this firm price, severable service, extends beyond the PoP we will be billed for the full twelve months. The stronger and most likely reading of the contract is that the full amount of the annual service should not be charged unless the service was provided for the full 12-month period. However, reading the FAR suggests we may be able to bill for 12 months of service. Nonetheless, based on my experience with post hoc reviews by stakeholders OTHER THAN the contracting officer (such as inspectors general), a pro rated invoicing approach rather than invoicing the full amount, may be the correct interpretation. The contract does not state if it contemplated “immediate” commencement of performance, it is notable that the documents clearly provide that the period of performance was to be 5/1/15-4/30/16, which is exactly one year. (clause 152.211-705). In addition, the Statement of Work provides that the period of performance was to be “12 months from contract award.” Whether or not it is of note, there is no feasible way for service to commence immediately after order, and we are not billed by our subcontractor until the circuit is tested and accepted by the Government. The question then becomes whether “performance” in this context means (a) to begin to build the required communications capacity, or (b) to actually provide the required communications capacity. If “performance” requires only working on the development of the promised capacity, as opposed to actually providing the promised capacity as a service, then it appears that the fixed fee would have been owed. The contract does not offer any indication as to what it intended. I would also note that nothing in the contract appears to require a pro rating of the price to reflect the timing of the in-service dates (or acceptance dates). Nonetheless, there does not appear to be any language in the contract indicating that the customer can be charged for anything other than an operable network service that meets all of the speed and other technical parameters, and that this service is subject to a fixed price for a full 12-month service period. The task order has ended, but there is some discussion if we are entitled to invoice and be paid the fixed price established in the contract. The incentive monies are secondary, and will be determined and paid in accordance with the terms of the contract. The task order has ended, but there is some discussion if we are entitled to invoice and be paid the fixed price established in the contract. The incentive monies are secondary, and will be determined and paid in accordance with the terms of the contract. As a follow-on question: The Government awarded a single source follow-on contract for this service to begin 1 May 2016 – 30 April 2017. If the guidance is that we can bill for the full twelve months, should there be concern about billing, effectively, twice for the same service (trailing six months after PoP end, and first six months of follow-on) even though the same service is being provided under a different contract?
  10. I have a contract to provide cyber security monitoring and analysis which are severable services. I have a request to add another set of analysis, which would cost approximately 10% of the total contract value. My legal team is telling me that since these are severable services, any additional work is consdered out of scope and must be done with a J&A. The work is the same or similiar as what is currently being done and would not have changed the competition at time of award. My question is, can you never add work to a severable services contract and call it within scope because there is a cost associated with it? Can I also modify the option periods since they have not yet started? Thank you in advance for any information!
  11. We received the following mod from our prime contractor, which they say is a word-for-word flow-down of the prime contract mod. I understand the Government can cut our funding anytime, but can they really direct which days of the week we work? For example, we have one employee who has a two-week vacation planned in September, but that time will not go toward her 20% cut because it's not only on Friday. I have tried to research the FAR about this, and I have not been able to find anything. I appreciate any FAR or other law references you can provide to help me understand how this is ok (or not). Thanks. 12.0 STATEMENT OF WORK ADDENDUM Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, in the event that the Government reduces operations pursuant to a furlough of civilian employees of the Department of Defense, the level of effort for this contract or task order established in SEA 5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT (DEC 2000) shall be reduced for the tenure of the civilian furlough. The level of effort for this contract or task order during the civilian furlough period shall be expended at an average rate of 2346 (80% of 2932) hours per week. The contractor is not required to remain on standby and should take every effort to minimize its overhead costs during the reduction. At the conclusion of the civilian furlough period, the level of effort will revert to the prior rate. The contractor will not be required to immediately revert to the prior level of effort, but rather will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to revert to the prior rate. During the civilian furlough period, unless otherwise authorized by the contracting officer, the work schedule will consist of an 8-hour work day Monday through Thursday. Therefore, Friday will not be part of the work schedule. At the conclusion of the civilian furlough period, the work schedule will revert to the prior established schedule, if any. This revision to the normal work week is not the result of an Executive Order or an administrative leave determination.
  12. 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?
  13. A contract was awarded for a base period of 6 months and an option period of 6 months for severable services. The 52.217-8 clause was included. After the base period ended, the 52.217-8 clause was used for an extension of 3 months with no other changes to the contract, the -8 clause was used again to extend for an additional month with no other changes to the contract. The 6 month option was exercised and five months into the performance period of the option, a scope change was required which caused the contractor to purchase additional supplies and required additional lead time and so the Changes Clause (52.243-1 Alternate II) was used for the within scope change and the contractor was granted an extension of 3 months. The 3 month extension has ended and we would like to use the -8 clause again for 2 months (the -8 clause was previously used as an authority for a total of 4 months out of the 6 allowed). Did the use of the Changes clause negate any time being left on the -8 clause or is an extension of 2 months still permitted using the -8 clause?
  14. Good day! My question is about selecting the correct labor law to apply to a subcontractor. If the subcontractor is performing a "service" on a DBA construction site, employs no laborers, mechanics, apprentices, trainees or helpers, is the work subject to the Service Contract Act or Davis Bacon Act? Anxiously awaiting your response!
×
×
  • Create New...