Payment issue

On 7/4/2020 at 5:05 AM, makamachine said:

Does anyone know about the problem?

Nope.

On 7/4/2020 at 5:05 AM, makamachine said:

Dfas knows the situation in the officer.

in what “officer” ?

On 7/4/2020 at 5:05 AM, makamachine said:

However, I could not explain the situation to the contract clerk for 3 months.

Why not? What prevented you from being able to explain the situation? I don’t understand the actual problem or reasons.

To be quite frank, I think that this is a very suspicious post. Bob??

Maka, you did not say that you complied with FAR 52.232-1 and 52.232-25.  Also, the fact that you delivered product does not necessarily entitle you to be paid for it.  Your entitlement to payment usually arises from government acceptance of the product.  Your failure to get paid may be your fault.

makamachine (“make a machine”? ) hasn’t logged in since posting the original post. maka, are you following this thread?

maka, you haven’t provided enough information for anyone to understand your scenario.  Please clarify per the questions posed by the respondents here. Thank you.

On 05.07.2020 at 18:42, Retreadfed said:

Maka, FAR 52.232-1 ve 52.232-25'e uyduğunuzu söylemediniz. Ayrıca, ürünü teslim etmeniz, size bunun için ödeme yapma hakkı vermez. Ödeme hakkınız genellikle devletin ürünü kabul etmesinden kaynaklanır. Ödeme alamamanız sizin hatanız olabilir.

Hi Mr Joel

Our company oconus, Our product was get by DLA. Nobody says it did not happen or did not accept it.

Our bank account information must be entered manually.

More than 90 days have passed.

I will gladly answer your questions regarding the solution.

My questions, why did you suspect, Mr Joel?

On 7/4/2020 at 3:05 AM, makamachine said:

I have been mailing the contract officer ever since. He says he is trying to solve the problem.

Does anyone know about the problem?

makamachine...what did the contracting officer say the problem was? Since the contracting officer was trying to solve the problem, the contracting officer seems to know what that problem is. Maybe you can write the contracting officer again and ask for the information? 

If your company is a small business, you can file a complaint about non-payment with the Small Business Administration. Also, you might consider filing a complaint with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals if your contract is with an Armed Service. see, https://www.asbca.mil/ If not, there may be other complaints you could file to get heard, but we would need to know what Agency of the Federal Government is involved with your contract.

DFAS Hotline complaint process for non-payment is also available to you, makamachine. See, https://www.dfas.mil/DFAS-Hotline/

makamachine said:

Hi Mr Joel

Our company oconus, Our product was get by DLA. Nobody says it did not happen or did not accept it.

Our bank account information must be entered manually.

More than 90 days have passed.

I will gladly answer your questions regarding the solution.

My questions, why did you suspect, Mr Joel?

Sorry, maka.  Your post was very unclear There was not enough detail to understand the actual problem. If you indeed did orally speak with the contracting officer and nothing was done, do you know why? You said :

On 7/4/2020 at 5:05 AM, makamachine said:

However, I could not explain the situation to the contract clerk for 3 months.

I don’t understand what you meant.

Neil Roberts said:

DFAS Hotline complaint process for non-payment is also available to you, makamachine. See, https://www.dfas.mil/DFAS-Hotline/

Neil, Do you think that the DFAS Hotline will help a contractor get paid? I may be wrong but I don’t think so.

“Abuse of authority? Conflicts of interest? Violations of law?

Submit a DFAS hotline complaint

The DFAS hotline page is dedicated to the reporting of issues related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement regarding programs and personnel under the purview of DFAS that DO NOT involve classified information.

Examples include:

Abuse of Authority

Conflicts of Interest

Violations of law, rule, or regulation

Computer Crime

Theft and abuse of government property

Please, DO NOT report Pay and Allowance matters; for these matters, please contact the DFAS Customer Care Center at (888) 332-7411 or submit a ticket online via AskDFAS.

*Pay and Allowance matters will NOT be answered by the DFAS Hotline Office*

How to Submit a DFAS Hotline Complaint

You may submit a complaint to the DFAS Hotline Office in the following manners:

Email: dfas.cleveland-oh.hi.mbx.investigation-hotline@mail.mil.

If your email message contains your name and/or contact information, please include one of the following designators regarding your preference on disclosure of your name and contact information at the beginning of your email:

“CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE” or “NON-CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE”

Note: Emails are not automatically anonymous. If your email contains your contact information, you may request that information remain confidential (non-consent to disclosure).

To learn more about your rights to disclosure, view the frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Fax: 216-367-0343

Phone: Toll Free: 1-800-330-8720; Commercial: 216-522-5806; or DSN 580-5806

Note: The telephone contact number is not staffed 24-hours, and you may have to leave a message with your information requesting a return call. For best results, submit a detailed email, which can be appropriately handled.”

maka said that their company is outside the continental US. We don’t know if the purchase was made locally, that is - OCONUS - or  if it was made from the Continental US. We don’t know what type of contract mechanism was used for the purchase or the purchasing agency.

joel hoffman said:

Neil, Do you think that the DFAS Hotline will help a contractor get paid? I may be wrong but I don’t think so.

Yup, lots of unknown's Joel.  I do not know the answer, but if the facts justify, the Hotline process may be one of two or three forum's that can be used simultaneously to help get it resolved. It appears that there might be a prompt payment law, rule or regulation violation.

DFAS Hotline is a wrong answer, I think.

The right answer is to file a claim amenable to the contract's Disputes clause.

Neil Roberts said:

Yup, lots of unknown's Joel.  I do not know the answer, but if the facts justify, the Hotline process may be one of two or three forum's that can be used simultaneously to help get it resolved. It appears that there might be a prompt payment law, rule or regulation violation.

Neil, Without knowing all the details, I don’t think that DFAS will get into the contract admin business. I think that the Hotline is for malfeasance issues. There can be many reasons why a company doesn’t get paid. Just sayin’...

I don’t think that there is enough information here to suspect at this point that there is a prompt payment violation.

I dont understand what maka is trying to describe as communications problems with the KO and the “contract clerk”.

maka needs to clarify the scenario before one can provide advice applicable to the specific problem.

If someone wants to communicate with maka via Personal Messenger, perhaps maka can describe the situation in sufficient detail to be able to provide specifically applicable advice to help maka get paid.

ji20874 said:

DFAS Hotline is a wrong answer, I think.

The right answer is to file a claim amenable to the contract's Disputes clause.

ji, I think that advising maka to file a claim now would not be the “right answer”. To me, that is a premature step.

If maka is having problems contacting or communicating with the contracting officer, I think that we should  try to understand what the actual problem is first. I think that maka just wants to get paid as soon as possible and probably doesn’t wish to spend a lot of time and probably money to pursue a claim.

maka asked for some advice here.

 Probably, we first need to fully understand the facts and the actual problem why maka hasn’t been paid before we can provide the “right answer”.

Years ago, as the construction/A-E “professor“ for the infamous “Ask a Professor” site, I made it a point to personally contact the questioner to determine the specific facts. Most submitted questions were too cryptic or General to be able to provide specific advice applicable to their situation.

After numerous complaints to the DAU site administrators about the poor quality of the AAP answers, they asked me to take over the construction and A-E topic area, so I did. That was about 19 years ago. I answered questions for about five years. There were a lot of resources within our Army Command to draw on for collaboration.

Based on the limited information and the want it seems of maka to find an alternative route as to why there is a payment issue I suggest a review and possibly use of the following website and its tools.  If maka has utilized the resources found on it then unfortunately maka is left with the CO (FAR 32.909) and if so, noting the delay,  then I would agree with ji.   I say this noting that maka has stated that the CO is "trying to solve the problem" and not that maka must do something more to be paid which implies it is on the Government's side and not that of the maka's.  Filing of the claim would elevate the matter for the CO to solve.

https://www.dfas.mil/contractorsvendors/

Carl, we all (me included) often seem to jump right in to research and provide answers before having adequate details or being able to determine the actual problem. Just sayin’.

Filing a claim necessarily requires both the contractor and government to expend time, resources and costs. In my organization, we were constantly urged via USACE Policy to try to resolve matters to avoid an issue being elevated to a claim. 

Having personally worked claims and personal disputes between contractors and our contract admin offices for at least 15 years, many of them could have been avoided by better communications, formal “partnering” processes or informal elevation within the organization. Those were often effective alternatives.

Joel:

I agree.  There are too many unknowns with the original and subsequent post.  Maka needs to get a straight answer from the CO whose phone number may be on the contract, order, etc.  The CO response has to be better than this.  Or just find the CO's name, google it, and he can find the phone number.

Quote

He says he is trying to solve the problem.

joel hoffman said:

Carl, we all (me included) often seem to jump right in to research and provide answers before having adequate details or being able to determine the actual problem. Just sayin’.

Filing a claim necessarily requires both the contractor and government to expend time, resources and costs. In my organization, we were constantly urged via USACE Policy to try to resolve matters to avoid an issue being elevated to a claim. 

Having personally worked claims and personal disputes between contractors and our contract admin offices for at least 15 years, many of them could have been avoided by better communications, formal “partnering” processes or informal elevation within the organization. Those were often effective alternatives.

Joel - No need to repeat your position. 

As a past CO who also dealt with claims, disputes and torts who now has to deal in the bureaucratic worlds of the government at all levels, along with commercial industry at all levels, there is a point where one must utilize a strong tool to get an answer.  The tool in the case of a Federal contract is the Contract Disputes Act and FAR clause if in the contract at 52.233-1 as it relates to prompt payment (FAR 52.232-25).  As I noted in my post if maka has exhausted his/her own ability to research the issue as well as seek the CO's help (back to solving the problem comment) then it is time to be forceful.   My read is that maka has made the case that he/she has done what the Government requires and the Government is not paying.

I do agree it is a guessing game based on the info provided but all too often folks get stonewalled in these days with bureaucratic rhetoric.  Maka needs to demand payment and make it so by making it a specific claim pursuant to the Disputes Act and as such the CO will be required to make payment (with interest) or write a CO decision denying payment.

makamachine said:

Maka, FAR 52.232-1 ve 52.232-25'e uyduğunuzu söylemediniz. Ayrıca, ürünü teslim etmeniz, size bunun için ödeme yapma hakkı vermez. Ödeme hakkınız genellikle devletin ürünü kabul etmesinden kaynaklanır. Ödeme alamamanız sizin hatanız olabilir.

Huh?

Well, Joel, it has been ninety days already and following your course might add ninety more days and still no payment.

The Disputes clause exists for this purpose.

The check-in-the-shield emblem in one of the original poster's comments makes me maka is using an internet translator, so there may be a language barrier.  Maka is probably in Turkey.  A claim is a good approach, but I suppose it will have to be written in English and it will have to state the facts.  We don't know any facts yet.

Hi, thank you very much for all your comments. There is no problem with my contract or product. I have evidence that it was delivered. Contract clerk says he was investigating why the payment was made every time and it's been so long since. Isn't everything normal in America? Yes my company located in Turkey.(OCONUS)My contract with DLA I will gladly answer your questions. Due to the time difference, I access the messages late. Thanks again.  

04.07.2020 13:05 tarihinde makamachine şunları söyledi:

Ürünüm 4 ay önce teslim edildi. Ödemem 30 gün sonra yapılmadı. O zamandan beri sözleşme memuruna posta gönderiyorum.

Sorunu yapmaya çalışıyorsunuz. Ayrıca banka içindir sözleşme memuruna gönderdim. Dfas memurun durumunu biliyor.

Ancak, durum 3 ay boyunca sözleşme memuruna açıklayamadım.

Sorunu bilen var mı?

05.07.2020 18:42, Retreadfed dedi:

Maka, FAR 52.232-1 ve 52.232-25'e uyduğunuzu söylemediniz. Ayrıca, ürün teslim içindir, boyut bunun için ödeme yapma hakkı vermez. Ödeme hakkınız genellikle devletin ürünü kabul etmeden kaynaklanır. Ödeme alamamanız sizin hatanız olabilir.

maka, if I was still working, I’d say that you could personal message me with the contracting officer’s name and contract clerk’s name, organization and phone numbers and I would try to contact them to inquire for you. But I don’t have active duty status any more.

They might or might not be willing to provide the status of payment. I worked in Saudi Arabia for four years plus four months there and throughout the Arabian Pennisula along the Persian Gulf during the 1st Gulf War. 

Are those contracting persons in Turkey, elsewhere overseas or are they in the CONUS?

Good luck to you.

joel hoffman said:

maka, eğer hala çalışsaydım, bana sözleşme görevlisinin adı ve sözleşme memurunun adı, organizasyonu ve telefon numaraları ile kişisel mesaj gönderebileceğini söyleyebilirim ve sana sormak için onlarla iletişime geçmeye çalışırdım. Ama artık aktif görev durumum yok.

Türkiye'deki kişiler yurtdışında mı, başka yerlerde mi yoksa KONUS'ta mı?

Sana iyi şanslar.

Thanks Mr Joel I think I should wait.

Have nice day

joel hoffman said:

maka, eğer hala çalışsaydım, bana sözleşme görevlisinin adı ve sözleşme memurunun adı, organizasyonu ve telefon numaraları ile kişisel mesaj gönderebileceğini söyleyebilirim ve sana sormak için onlarla iletişime geçmeye çalışırdım. Ama artık aktif görev durumum yok.

Türkiye'deki kişiler yurtdışında mı, başka yerlerde mi yoksa KONUS'ta mı?

Sana iyi şanslar.

Mr Joel

I recently received a 13-item letter from DLA. Do you have any information about this? I have a few questions.

makamachine said:

Mr Joel

I recently received a 13-item letter from DLA. Do you have any information about this? I have a few questions.

Sorry maka. Without reading it, I do not know what they would have said.

joel hoffman said:

Üzgünüm maka. Okumadan ne söyleyeceklerini bilmiyorum.

Do you know about the evaluation points of the 13-item letter?

makamachine said:

Do you know about the evaluation points of the 13-item letter?

No sir, sorry. Not without reading it. If you would trust me, you could send me a photo copy In the personal messenger feature in this Forum and I would be willing to read it and comment back to you. Then I can delete it from my messages.

maka, unfortunately, I don’t understand the Turkish language. I am sorry.

joel hoffman said:

No sir, sorry. Not without reading it. If you would trust me, you could send me a photo copy In the personal messenger feature in this Forum and I would be willing to read it and comment back to you. Then I can delete it from my messages.

Mr. Joel. Of course, I trust 

maka machine.pdf

makamachine said:

Mr. Joel. Of course, I trust 

maka machine.pdf 281.52 kB · 0 downloads

Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?

joel hoffman said:

Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?

Mr Joel Mail from the official account of DIBBS. not suspicious.

makamachine said:

Mr Joel Mail from the official account of DIBBS. not suspicious.

OK, maybe someone here can enlighten us!

maka, please clarify :

1. are you presently registered in Dibbs?

2. did you bid on some supplies in response to a quote or request for proposal in Dibbs?

3. did you win the bid to supply the item or items?  Did the government order the item from you through Dibbs?

Thanks.

Joel, be careful -- I know there are rules about employees and former employees representing private parties before federal agencies.  You're retired so you might be free to do so, but you wrote "if I was still working" and the hair on my neck stood up, so to speak.

ji20874 said:

Joel, be careful -- I know there are rules about employees and former employees representing private parties before federal agencies.  You're retired so you might be free to do so, but you wrote "if I was still working" and the hair on my neck stood up, so to speak.

Concern understood. He is asking for information concerning the letter from DIBBS. In addition he is having trouble communicating with the KO and the “clerk”. I would have had no qualms about facilitating communications between the parties, not acting as an advocate or representative for their contractor. The USACE was a pioneer in developing and facilitating Partnering processes between stakeholders and our contractors. In fact, it is USACE policy that we are to offer to partner with every contractor.

By the way, ji, I was taught that it is improper for a government employee to urge or to coach a contractor to submit a claim against the US Government,  especially for matters that the employee is unfamiliar with.

We are trying to determine the facts of this situation. Right now all we know is that maka supplied something to somebody and invoiced for it. Possibly through a DIBBS bidding process.

There are no rules preventing a former civil service employee from representing a contractor before other federal agencies with no direct relationship to their former job.

There are numerous friends of mine, as well as several former government employees here on the WIFCON Forum,  who are paid advisors and advise and/or represent contractors before federal agencies.

makamachine said:

Mr. Joel. Of course, I trust 

maka machine.pdf 281.52 kB · 4 downloads

Ask DLA for a valid OMB Control Number for the requested collection of information. Remind them that, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.6, they may not penalize you for your failure to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. They probably won't know what hit them.

Joel,

It is entirely fair to remind a contractor of its rights under the contract.

On 7/7/2020 at 6:50 AM, ji20874 said:

DFAS Hotline is a wrong answer, I think.

The right answer is to file a claim amenable to the contract's Disputes clause.

Reminding them of their right to file a claim is ok. Telling them “to file a claim” - without even knowing the facts of the problem - is improper for a federal employee.

ji20874 said:

Well, Joel, it has been ninety days already and following your course might add ninety more days and still no payment.

The Disputes clause exists for this purpose.

The check-in-the-shield emblem in one of the original poster's comments makes me maka is using an internet translator, so there may be a language barrier.  Maka is probably in Turkey.  A claim is a good approach, but I suppose it will have to be written in English and it will have to state the facts.  We don't know any facts yet.

This goes beyond reminding a contractor of their right to submit a claim. When a current federal employee advises that “a claim is a good approach”, that is encouraging a contractor to submit a claim.

maka, the letter from the DIBBS Team lead began with:

Quote

Subject: DLA Internet Bid Board System Account Has Been Locked

As previously indicated we are seeking to validate your business operation before we grant access to the DLA automated procurement process, which in order to maintain its efficiency and economy relies on contractors that require little contract oversight or administration.

maka, what were you previously told by DLA regarding your DIBBS account? 

I don't understand how you apparently responded to a Request for a Proposal or for a quote or for a bid in DIBBS; then you were issued an order; then you provided the item or items; then you were locked out of the system before you were paid. 

The letter ends with this:

Quote

If the package received does not meet these guidelines listed in this letter, it will be rejected and the account will remain indefinitely locked.

Failure to provide the required information within 90 days of receipt of this letter will result in the indefinite suspension of the DIBBS account associated with your CAGE Code. DLA will notify your company, within 60 days of receipt of the information, of the outcome of the review. 

received does not meet these guidelines listed in this letter, it will be rejected and the account will remain indefinitely locked.

Failure to provide the required information within 90 days of receipt of this letter will result in the indefinite suspension of the DIBBS account associated with your CAGE Code. DLA will notify your company, within 60 days of receipt of the information, of the outcome of the review.

I'm not familiar with this system.  However,  it would seem very strange to be locked out of a system after filling an order and then DLA delays payment for the completed order until well after you provide all sorts of information to them.

maka, did the DIBBS team identify problems with your existing DIBBS account that would delay or prevent payment for an existing, completed order?

maka are you in the process of providing the requested information?

joel hoffman said:

Advising that a claim is a good approach is encouraging a contractor to submit a claim.

I never advised that a claim is a good approach -- that is your own erroneous characterization.  Filing a claim is a right of the contractor, and the Disputes clause exists for this purpose.  When a contractor is not paid under a contract, and has already spent 90 days to resolve the problem but to no avail, filing a claim is a reasonable step and an honorable step.  It is entirely fair for a federal employee to remind a contractor of its rights under the contract, especially in a setting such as this.

ji20874 said:

I never advised that a claim is a good approach -- that is your own erroneous characterization.  Filing a claim is a right of the contractor, and the Disputes clause exists for this purpose.  When a contractor is not paid under a contract, and has already spent 90 days to resolve the problem but to no avail, filing a claim is a reasonable step and an honorable step.  It is entirely fair for a federal employee to remind a contractor of its rights under the contract, especially in a setting such as this.

You said “A claim is a good approach”.

You also said “We don't know any facts yet.” Which is Correct and is why it is improper to suggest that a claim is a good approach at this point. You weren’t reminding maka of his right to file a claim. “You have the right to file a claim” is a reminder.

By the way, from the info that maka provided, it appears that the unpaid amount is less than $300. It would cost more than that to prepare a claim and a whole lot more than that to address the claim. And if the government is delinquent in payment, would the payment be subject to interest under prompt payment provisions?

So, we disagree.

joel hoffman said:

Goodness! Okay, fellow Wifconers! Can anyone provide some insight into the matters discussed in the letter? It is unsigned and undated. It asks for much detailed company information! Could it be someone trying to gain improper access to maka’s company information?

Okay so here is my insight.....

Maka has provided evidence of proof of an actual purchase order being issued (SPE5E9-20-V-2697) and proof of delivery of an item;  followed by a reference document that the pruchase order is in the DLA payment system for payment.   Maka has also provided a letter regarding DIBBS that suggests the delay for payment is because of a DIBBS account not being appropriately set up.

I take this information as fact  as maka has willingly provided it.

It is my insight that payment is not related to DIBBS.   DIBBS (DLA Internet BId Board System) is for accessing and bidding on items.  Maka got a PO and the purchase order is readily available as maka has provided.   DIBBS is not a payment system with payment made through another system by DLA. 

So there are two issues that maka has posted about - An item delivered for which the government has not paid for and registration in DIBBS.

Now I not familiar with the processes of DLA however my suggestions are as follows -

For the contract (actually a stand alone purchase order)  SPE5E9-20-V-2697 maka could just continue to wait for some explanation and help with regard to getting the payment.   Or maka could file a claim pursuant FAR clause 52.233-1 which should be in the purchase order either as a stand alone clause or as paragraph called "Disputes" in clause 52.212-4 if the purchase order was issued as a commercial item purchase.  I suggest that converting the outstanding invoice to a claim as it is my view that the CO with a claim in hand could/should circumvent the payment system and make the payment.  The government received the item and  maka is rightfully due the payment.

As to maka fixing the DIBBS account I would suggest that DLA has a help center and that would be my first contact for assistance.    https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/SmallBusiness/DIBBS Pocket Guide.pdf 

Further as we all know such help centers are sometimes confusing so as an alternative there is lots of information on the internet regarding DIBBS including private entities that will help firms on their registration and maintenance of their account.  Suggested search would be using this as the search question - "Setting up my DIBBS account + overseas contractor". 

Another source is the Association of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers website.  While a Procurement Technical Assistance Center is not located in Europe their website webpage on doing business with DLA may be helpful and is found here - https://www.aptac-us.org/selling-to-dla/

C Culham said:

Okay so here is my insight.....

Maka has provided evidence of proof of an actual purchase order being issued (SPE5E9-20-V-2697) and proof of delivery of an item;  followed by a reference document that the pruchase order is in the DLA payment system for payment.   Maka has also provided a letter regarding DIBBS that suggests the delay for payment is because of a DIBBS account not being appropriately set up.

I take this information as fact  as maka has willingly provided it.

It is my insight that payment is not related to DIBBS.   DIBBS (DLA Internet BId Board System) is for accessing and bidding on items.  Maka lgot a PO and the pruchase order is readliy available as maka has provided.   DIBBS is not a payment system with payment made through another system by DLA. 

So there are two issues that maka has posted about - An item delivered for which the government has not paid for and registration in DIBBS.

Now I not familiar with the processes of DLA however my suggestions are as follows -

For the contract (actually a stand alone purchase order)  SPE5E9-20-V-2697 maka could just continue to wait for some explanation and help with regard to getting the payment.   Or maka could file a claim pursuant FAR clause 52.233-1 which should be in the purchase order either as a stand alone clause or as paragraph called "Disputes" in clause 52.212-4 if the purchase order was issued as a commercial item purchase.  I suggest that converting the outstanding invoice to a claim as it is my view that the CO with a claim in hand could/should circumvent the payment system and make the payment.  The government received the item and  maka is rightfully due the payment.

As to maka fixing the DIBBS account I would suggest that DLA has a help center and that would be my first contact for assistance.    https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/SmallBusiness/DIBBS Pocket Guide.pdf 

Further as we all know such help centers are sometimes confusing so as an alternative there is lots of information on the internet regarding DIBBS including private entities that will help firms on their registration and maintenance of their account.  Suggested search would be using this as the search question - "Setting up my DIBBS account + overseas contractor". 

Another source is the Association of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers website.  While a Procurement Technical Assistance Center is not located in Europe their website webpage on doing business with DLA may be helpful and is found here - https://www.aptac-us.org/selling-to-dla/

Thanks, Carl.

The unpaid invoice is for $294. I’ve asked maka what the DIBBS office previously told him prior to the letter he shared. Don’t understand why payment would be related to that action but I don’t know much about DIBBS.

joel hoffman said:

Reminding them of their right to file a claim is ok. Telling them “to file a claim” - without even knowing the facts of the problem - is improper for a federal employee.

Always an interesting debate of which I have done my own research and wonder where it the conglomeration of ethics rules this is a fact rather than a myth.....

 https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Resources/Ethics+Training+Tools+and+Templates

Joel, You're right -- I did say a claim is a good approach.  And in the context that I said it, it is.  There may be better approaches, but none of them have worked yet.  I don't think your chasing the DIBBS rabbit will result in a payment anytime soon, but I wish you well.

This prior WIFCOM thread might be helpful to some:

The invoice is for $294.  I wonder how much money the government is spending trying to get this resolved.  I am sure it is many times the amount of the invoice.  If the ordering officer knows that the amount is due, someone should figure out a way to get it paid, perhaps through an imprest fund or credit card.  This seems a case of the government being penny wise and pound foolish.

I would like to thank the friends who sent valuable answers to their topics. I have to explain about the issues I have opened. I registered my company in DIBBS.My company is located in Turkey. (OCONUS) There is no problem with my bidding on the requests. In total, 10 contracts ($22.000 )were signed with DLA. I completed the manufacturing to deliver. I sent 1 product to America and 1 product to South Korea. The product I sent to America was received by DLA. I was scheduled to pay April 23, 2020. This letter came before my product to South Korea was delivered. In South Korea, my product went to waste. My DIBBS account was closed and all my contracts were canceled. I was given time to respond to the letter. I received a letter when I asked why my account was closed before I received a letter.Then I answered the letter and recently received an answer to the letter and my account was closed.$ 294 won't save me.My products went to the trash. We've been disgraced in South Korea. Our company is a qualified manufacturer and we are proud people. If the contract is to be canceled, why are we awarded? They could ask for the letter in the first place. The contract clerk is ignorant. Although I say what the problem is, it cannot solve it. The account was closed, the money was not paid, the products were thrown away. No one gives us the information. It is very interesting that this happens in a country like America. I wanted you to know that I experienced more than finding solutions on this page. I don't want to steal anyone's time and I don't want to leave it in a difficult situation. We are trying to make a trade. I am aware of your government's strict policies. The arbitrary approach of DLA officers is very wrong. They give you correct answers too late and wrong. Marking, packaging, billing, etc. I know many things very well. I will continue to seek my right. Thank you very much to all my friends. (especially to you, Mr. Joel)

Best Regards

DENIZ KARAKAYA

EB POC

Deniz,

It sounds like you shipped an item to the USA, and you were paid.  

And, you shipped an item to South Korea, but that item was rejected and you were not paid. 

Is this right?

Is it possible that you are not being paid because your product failed to pass inspection?

ji20874 said:

Deniz,

ABD'ye bir ürün sevk ettiğiniz anlaşılıyor ve size ödeme yapıldı.  

Ve Güney Kore'ye bir ürün gönderdiniz, ancak bu ürün reddedildi ve size ödeme yapılmadı. 

Bu doğru mu?

Ürününüz incelemeyi geçemediği için size ödeme yapılmaması mümkün mü?

My product was delivered to America and I received proof of delivery. I left the product to South Korea and my contract was canceled. Unpaid money US delivery.