Overrun Mod Apk
Leoma Cianchetti
I am currently writing a basic program to read in results from an oxygen sensor that communicates via serial connection. In my current code, I keep getting an overrun error after a few times of running the program. Any suggestions as to how I can fix it? Thank you!
It is set to run once every second. If your device is sending data faster than once were second, then eventually the buffer will fill up. Use a regular while loop and don't put any timing functions in it as the communicating device will control the speed of the loop based on how fast it is sending data.
The device sends an update every 10 seconds, I used a timed loop with a case structure so that it calls the Read vi every 11 loops (11 seconds, 1 extra second just to be safe), also, I have the timed loop set to 1 second so that it updates the counter gauge every seconds indicating how much longer until the next measurement.
Your whole concept of VISA read is incorrect. The VISA read will just sit there doing nothing until it either gets data or times out. Don't try to control the timing of the while loop; just let the VISA read do it for you. (Increase the timeout because I think it defaults to 10 seconds.)
Do you know what to expect from your equipment? Do you know if the data ends with a termination character? Knowing this will definitely influence the design choices that you make, and possibly even cause the error.
HOWEVER, you never close the port in your VI. So if you stop the VI and restart it, the port will have remained open and the buffer accumulating bytes until it overflowed which you'll find out once you restart the VI.
Our team over ran our T&M contract prior to alerting our CO. Our CO is now not wanting to pay these costs. I know FAR 52.232-7 states the Government is not obligated to pay in excess of the ceiling price. Our position is that they received a benefit for this support and with it being T&M, this was an estimate and we put forth best efforts to stay within the contract ceiling. Is there anywhere in the FAR we can point to for payment? Or would we need to go through a claim or REA process?
There is no contract type in which the government must pay for a contractor's overrun. Not even a cost-type contract requires the government to reimburse a contractor's costs that exceed the funding provided.
I understand your position that the government received a benefit but I'm not liking your chances of getting your costs covered, regardless of whether you file an REA or claim. I'm sorry to say, I think ji20874 is correct. Your "best efforts to stay within the contract ceiling" were insufficient and now there is a financial consequence.
Footnotes omitted. The contract to which that quote pertained was cost-reimbursement, not T&M. The General Electric Company decision cited by Manos has itself been cited 274 times. (The "Court of Claims" was the old court, now the Federal Circuit.)
Emphasis added. The rest of that article goes on at length to discuss the circumstances in which a contractor might be entitled to reimbursement despite failure to give notice of an overrun. See also 43 GC 55, Feb. 1, 2001, "'LOC Clause Did Not Bar Contractor's $16 Million Insurance Cost Claim":
I could find only four BCA decisions about T&M contracts, ceilings, and failure to give notice, but no COFC decisions. The contractor did not recover in any of the board cases. But see Michael Weller, Inc. v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, GSBCA 11411-NHI, 94-2 BCA P 26849, which pertained to a T&M contract, and in which Judge Vergilio, in a dissent from the majority ruling, gave reasons why strict interpretation of the ceiling price limitation and notice requirement might not be justified.
I am NOT saying that the OP is entitled to payment of its excess costs. I have no idea whether it could recover. I suspect its chances are between slim and none. I am saying that contractors have recovered overruns under contracts despite failing to give notice and that the legal principle that has sometimes worked to allow such contractors to recover under cost-reimbursement contracts might also apply to T&M contracts, although I think it would be more difficult to invoke successfully given the nature of the T&M pricing arrangement.
Ibn, you are correct -- of course you are. I was hoping to avoid a discussion of the rare exceptions to the rule that failure to comply with LoC/LoF notification requirements was excusable. I should have been more careful with my language. A parenthetical "(with very limited exceptions)" would have sufficed. I went for impact versus technical correctness, which is never a good choice in this forum.
I had a strange variation on this theme arise this week. A contractor notified a contracting officer as required, but stated that even though they expected to overrun the ceiling price (T&M type GSA order) by $six figures, they were not requesting additional funding and planned to finish the effort (about six more months of effort) within the ceiling price. I know a good deal when I see one--the contractor here is effectively eating some costs in order to receive a non-negative "cost control" rating in CPARS. (The total order value is in the low eight figure range.)
However, another CO and our agency counsel believes that this would be accepting voluntary services and therefore not allowed. They've pointed me to the inspection/acceptance section of 52.212-4 Alt 1, but I'm not persuaded that those paragraphs cover what is contemplated here. They've also pointed me to B-324214 at GAO, which really has nothing to do with contracting. They both believe that I should be able to point to something in the FAR that allows us to accept these services, but I think they have the standard of evidence backwards.
I'm trying to broker a compromise based on this. If we fund it but the contractor never invoices for it, great. No worries. The funds are two year money so as long as we do our jobs efficiently, the un-invoiced for funds will got back to the program office. In short, we can't make them invoice for hours they don't want to invoice for.
@KeithB18 Did your contractor notify the CO in writing that it would keep working at no additional cost to the government? If so, ask your other CO and agency counsel if they understand the distinction between voluntary services and gratuitous services.
I have been doing this a long time (on the contractor's side of things, mostly) and I've never encountered the distinction between voluntary and gratuitous services. Based on Ibn's posts I've done some googling and feel much more informed on the subject. I just wanted to express my appreciation for our peripatetic wanderer who has brought back such knowledge to this forum. Perhaps my note of appreciation is gratuitous, but it's nonetheless sincere.
The issue is that contractual enforcement of specifications and clauses would be limited to the work done up until the point at which the contractor reached the ceiling. That's because any work beyond that point would be gratuitous and thus, presumably, not subject to the contract terms. The work is not gratuitous if the contract still applies.
The issue is that contractual enforcement of specifications and clauses would be limited to the work done up until the point at which the contractor reached the ceiling. That's because any work beyond that point would be gratuitous and thus, presumably, not subject to the contract terms.
@KeithB18 The prohibition against voluntary services is designed to prevent violations of the Antideficiency Act. The contractor has said (in writing, I hope) that it will continue to work without compensation, which means that the government is not obligated. The Comptroller General has said that there is no risk of an ADA violation if the contractor commits in advance to work without compensation. Such services would be gratuitous, not voluntary, which would be okay. See Denali Commission---Statutory Pay for Commissioners, B-322832, March 30, 2012:
If your contractor notified the CO in writing that it would continue to work beyond the ceiling price at no charge to the government, all the CO need do is respond in writing that the government agrees on the condition that it will not be obligated beyond the ceiling price, and ask the contractor to confirm in writing. Then you would have the agreement that the GAO would look for. Written agreement is necessary in order to document that the work is free of charge and to preclude the possibility of a misunderstanding and a legitimate claim by the contractor.
The issue is that contractual enforcement of specifications and clauses would be limited to the work done up until the point at which the contractor reached the ceiling. That's because any work beyond that point would be gratuitous and thus, presumably, not subject to the contract terms. The work is not gratuitous if the contract still applies. Can the government live with that? If the government is willing to accept that condition in the hopes of getting the job finished for free, then go for it. If the government wants to continue to enforce the terms of the contract after the ceiling is reached, then it must increase the ceiling price as provided for in the T&M payment clause and pay the contractor for the additional work.
Think this through before you go back to your general counsel. Be ready with answers to his or her questions. When looking to the future, lawyers ask, What if? The key question for the counsel should be whether the government might be obligated if the contractor continued working. Saying, Why worry if the contractor does not invoice? does not answer that question.
93ddb68554