We have a CPFF contract that states "Travel (to include per diem) costs shall be consistent with the JTR" and then in the PWS says "Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines."

The Government has taken this to mean they can tell the contractor employees they have to stay on base, in squad bays, in barracks, etc. and eat in the military dining hall even if the XYZ guidelines do not require it. They have also gone as far to say our contractor employees cannot drive so they cannot rent a car to go to a hotel or eat somewhere else.  A lot of time this is as a result of a Commander saying their military personnel are staying in barracks, so why wouldn't the contractor personnel? Or why would they allow them to eat somewhere else since the dining hall is cheaper?

Our internal travel policy is based on the FAR regulations which allows for commercial lodging, with the note that this may not happen if there is a contract requirement. Also, from my perspective, unless the XYZ guideline says the contractor shall stay on base, they cannot limit it. I also do not believe they can limit the per diem even if they stay on base based on our policy of provide the fixed per diem amount no more than the GSA amount in accordance with FAR 31.205-46(a).

We have already had a basic discussion with the KO who stated that we should do whatever the military personnel do despite the FAR references, but since this is a huge impact, I want to attempt to reengage and have a more meaningful discussion with additional references if possible. 

Thoughts on how to approach this with the KO? 

35 minutes ago, ReadTheContract848 said:

The Government has taken this to mean they can tell the contractor employees they have to stay on base, in squad bays, in barracks, etc. and eat in the military dining hall even if the XYZ guidelines do not require it.

If we knew what the XYZ guidelines were, we might be able to be helpful.

But still, even if the XYZ guidelines do not require staying on base, do they allow for staying on base?  If so, maybe the agency's direction is "in accordance with" the guidelines.

While it is difficult to interpret exactly what it means to "be consistent with the JTR" the JTR does require use of government quarters for travelers to US installations if they "are adequate and available" (page 2-30). Maybe the question would come down to whether a barracks is considered adequate.

Meals appear to be treated similarly in the JTR, if they are available on the installation where the traveler is staying, the traveler doesn't get full per diem (page 2-37).

I think in general when a contract says "travel will be in accordance with the JTR" both the Government and the contractor expect it to just mean flights should be economy class and lodging and per diem should be within established rates, but the actual JTR says a whole lot more. Of course since it also says it does not apply to contractors the issue is a little more confusing. It seems like a good practice would be for the contract to explicitly state which specific parts of the JTR are to apply under the contract, e.g. travel and per diem rates, and not just reference the entire thing.

1 hour ago, RJ_Walther said:

It seems like a good practice would be for the contract to explicitly state which specific parts of the JTR are to apply under the contract, e.g. travel and per diem rates, and not just reference the entire thing.

Therefore, I’d also say “Read the Contract” as a whole. 

17 hours ago, ReadTheContract848 said:

the PWS [specifically*] says "Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines.

* added by me

Echoing ji:

17 hours ago, ji20874 said:

If we knew what the XYZ guidelines were, we might be able to be [more**] helpful.

**added by me

It seems to me from the limited information so far (e.g., what are the XYZ guidelines(?), any pre-award inquiries(?), any pre-award discussions or clarifications(?), price proposal details(?), etc.), that the government has stated its intentions in the “contract”.

Since this is an awarded contract, I think that the contractor should have been aware, before award, the meaning of the statement “Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines.”

This is a CPFF contract. Therefore, it was apparently a negotiated competitive or sole source acquisition.

Why is this issue being raised now, after award?

1 hour ago, RJ_Walther said:

the JTR does require use of government quarters for travelers to US installations if they "are adequate and available" (page 2-30). Maybe the question would come down to whether a barracks is considered adequate.

Meals appear to be treated similarly in the JTR, if they are available on the installation where the traveler is staying, the traveler doesn't get full per diem (page 2-37).

@ReadTheContract848, were you or others in your company aware of the stated requirement for government accommodations in the solicitation and what the JTR actually includes in addition to per diem rate limits, as applicable to the stated “government accommodations”?

You indicated that your personal “perspective” contradicts the stated solicitation and subsequent contract requirement…

Something in the pre-award process for this CPFF contract is either unspoken here or seemingly amiss…

 

 

Edited July 18, 2024Jul 18 by joel hoffman

I’m also curious, If your employees will essentially be stuck on base with no off-duty transportation provided for, was this addressed in your proposal or otherwise considered before award?

 

23 hours ago, ReadTheContract848 said:

Thoughts on how to approach this with the KO?

I’m not sure whether this is a pre-award question or post-award, contract administration question. It concerns the “contractors workforce”, although not the “contracting workforce.”

The answer depends upon whether it is  pre-award or post-award as well as answers to the questions raised above by respondents.

I had a COR tell me that it is illegal for the government to mandate a specific hotel when there are other preferred hotels at or below per diem.  I cannot find anything in the FAR. Does anyone know where to find this? I am a contractor and am being told you have to stay at xxx because I said so. 

On 2/22/2025 at 10:46 AM, Rebecca B. said:

I had a COR tell me that it is illegal for the government to mandate a specific hotel when there are other preferred hotels at or below per diem.  I cannot find anything in the FAR. Does anyone know where to find this? I am a contractor and am being told you have to stay at xxx because I said so. 

What does your contract say?

If nothing, then you don't have to comply unless you want to.

On 2/22/2025 at 10:46 AM, Rebecca B. said:

I had a COR tell me that it is illegal for the government to mandate a specific hotel when there are other preferred hotels at or below per diem.  I cannot find anything in the FAR. Does anyone know where to find this? I am a contractor and am being told you have to stay at xxx because I said so. 

here-2-help is correct, yet I cannot help add an additional thought.   

You have Contracting Officer Represetnative (COR) tell you its not right.  So who has told you and why do you think they have authority to do so?  Does the contract give someone authority other than the CO  or their designated COR to administer the contract?  If it does not have you been given some other statement in writing that someone other than the CO or COR has authority to administer the contract?   All considered and if your contract is silent on the matter and you are still looking for some FAR reference to help you consider FAR 1.602 and FAR 43.102 with regard to CO authority.  

On 2/22/2025 at 1:46 PM, Rebecca B. said:

I had a COR tell me that it is illegal for the government to mandate a specific hotel when there are other preferred hotels at or below per diem.  I cannot find anything in the FAR. Does anyone know where to find this? I am a contractor and am being told you have to stay at xxx because I said so. 

Can you provide details on the purpose of the travel?  The reason I’m asking is I’ve seen this happen before.  One situation involved government and contracting staffs meeting to mutually resolve events and they wanted everyone together.  The other is the government received benefits for ensuring a certain number of rooms got booked.  The benefits included discounts on conference food and free/reduced rates on conference rooms.

Yes, I agree with formerfed on this. Please provide the context to the situation.

If the Government has arranged for a conference location, hotels often provide free or discounted meeting space and services based upon expected occupancy for attendance. The parties may have arranged for a block of rooms for attendees. Since the government is paying for the attendees travel, it would seem entirely reasonable to expect the attendees to stay at the location in such circumstances. Sorry if you won’t get points or other membership Bennie’s from another hotel chain. 

One thing missing from both the foregoing discussions is the destination of the travel.  

@joel hoffman @formerfed @Retreadfed  For my clarity, if the contract is silent to as to where the contractor is to stay are you saying the Government, other than the CO, can  direct the contractor where to stay becasue of occupancy commitment made by the Government, destination or whatever?  If so how?

If the contract is silent on the subject, then the contractor is free to stay wherever.  In the instances I described, the government generally gives direction to the contractor on the event.  Examples include “ participant in X to be held…” or “attend a conference…”

Of course, if a CO or someone else tells a contractor to stay at a hotel and the contractor chooses not to for some reason, there may be repercussions down the road which aren’t favaobable to the contractor.

6 hours ago, formerfed said:

or someone else

Thanks.   I do realize that WIFCON participants probably know that a "someone else" giving direction not called for in the contract and the contractor following such direction is ripe for repercussions I just lean towards a more postivie statement.  That being -  If the contract is silent then direction to stay at a specific location should be by somebody with the direct authority to do so.  The post by @Rebecca B. that provides "I said so" by my read implies someone else that lacks authority to direct where the contractor is to stay. 

Without any more information and context to the situation, we can only speculate…

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

Thanks.   I do realize that WIFCON participants probably know that a "someone else" giving direction not called for in the contract and the contractor following such direction is ripe for repercussions I just lean towards a more postivie statement.  

Poor choice of words on my part.  I was thinking in terms of IDIQ contracts where task order COs or ordering officers are designated.  Then there are contracts where work is broadly defined and uses language like “attend conferences at time and place as defined by the government” where the COR is the person designing.  But that wasn’t what I was originally meant.  

22 hours ago, C Culham said:

For my clarity, if the contract is silent to as to where the contractor is to stay are you saying the Government, other than the CO, can  direct the contractor where to stay

Carl, I was thinking of OCONUS travel.  Some contracts for OCONUS work state that logistics support will be provided by the government and give the local commander the authority to control how that support will be provided to contractors.  This includes telling contractors where to stay.

59 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

Some contracts for OCONUS work state

Thank you.  I was going on the premise of what if the contract did not state.  I was going on the my premise as noted before,  the OP stated that the direction was "I said so" not a reference to a contract requirement.

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

the OP stated that the direction was "I said so" not a reference to a contract requirement.

Carl, note that my post was in regard to both discussions.  Readthecontract did not say anything about "because i said so."  However, Rebecca did.  Readthecontract did reference contract provisions, but did not disclose what the XYZ guidelines are.