The Work actually performed and invoiced was 91% of what was originally expected. We think that the 7% fee should be reduced commensurately while our former sub is holding out that 7% fixed fee, or the dollar value based on the SubK max, is what we are liable for. We believe that they performed 91% of work and are entitled to 91% of that fixed fee.
I am also a former Navy KO and have taken many DAWIA courses at Fort Belvoir. I probably know a lot of your colleagues, i.e., Lyle Eesley...
The contract between the prime and subcontractor generally does not depend on what the FAR says, but rather on the specific terms and conditions contained in the contract between the prime and sub. FAR content can sometimes be used as one "standard" during the resolution of disputes between prime and sub, but it is not authoritative. If this were an issue between the Government and prime contractor, and it was demonstrated that only 91% of the work was completed, it would be entirely appropriate to pay the prime contractor only 91% of the fixed fee. However, if all contract requirements were met and the actual cost came in at 91% of the estimate, then the full fixed fee would be due to the prime.
Open full Question Details