GP 3 day payment

[Action]

I can't find the email, but when does GP / IP combine with the other company?

 

[2deuce]

I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy from GP on this forum or anywhere else. I'm just saying they are a business that could improve their bottom line and improve their customer service at the same time. I had less than a good experience the 1st time with GP, I'm hoping my next one is better. Time will tell.

 

[porkysplace]

I can't find the email, but when does GP / IP combine with the other company?

I believe JWade posted if would completed early in 2017.

[h=1]IronPlanet bought by Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers[/h]

 

[springbok]

Other than the expected EUC wait time my experience with GP was good.
As far as selling some of these "On Road" Humvees, that may come back to bite them. We all know where many of them came from in the first place and how they were sold...

 

[Recovry4x4]

As long as these folks aren't selling me food and fuel, they can do as they wish. A monoply on the sales of HMMWVs in the grand scheme, doesn't affect much. No one really needs a HMMWV, or do they?

 

[gimpyrobb]

As long as these folks aren't selling me food and fuel, they can do as they wish. A monoply on the sales of HMMWVs in the grand scheme, doesn't affect much. No one really needs a HMMWV, or do they?

90% are off road only anyhoo, nope doesn't affect me any.

 

[2deuce]

I lived through the gov crushing all those HMMWV's, but once all the waste was pointed out in crushing... we have GP selling. I agree it doesn't matter in the grand scheme, because everything is controlled one way or another. As an example every station selling diesel within 5miles my home sells it for 2.59.9 but if you travel out of town where it needs to be trucked a couple hours, you can get it around 2.40.9, cheaper after it's moved.

The trouble I had with GP was over sales tax. I'm in Oregon where there is none, but they demanded I pay it anyway. The funny thing is it was over a trailer I won with a bid of 1400, and when I couldn't get an answer except it's their policy, I let the sale drop. When the same trailer came back up a couple weeks later it sold for 1700.

 

[brazengoat06]

I agree on the sales tax issue. I have an exemption for OK but unless you have the item shipped then they won't allow you a sales tax exemption. So in the end it's cheaper to pay the sales tax.

 

[springbok]

Remember the number one thing. In the end they are big toys.

 

[Chief_919]

Back on topic now. I still haven't been able to find the contract number. If anyone does, feel free to post.

In terms of the EUC. I wonder if anyone has actually read it.

Here is my view based on reading the EUC and my knowledge of FAR. There are really only two ways this contract could be structured.

1. If GP buys the equipment, they own the equipment. This means that they hold the EUC. They are responsible for the passing the information from the EUC regarding the laws and regulations to the subsequent purchaser/receiver. - This would seem the most logical and would mean that we could pick up the equipment quickly, but the problem is that we are buying the equipment.

2. If we are buying the equipment from the Govt, GP can't assess late fees nor should they be able to accept payment until the contract requirements are met. This should be pretty straight forward following govt regulations. The EUC is part of the bid and not post bid. GP should function similar to any other auction site that they are just providing a means for the transaction. Of course this is speculation since I haven't been able to review the actual contract.

I realize that IP is a commercial business and they have their own terms and conditions. That is fine. They can do whatever they want in the private sector, but in the federal world, they have to follow the rules and regulations.

Sure we could all sit back and accept things the way they are, but we could also sit back and let them raise our taxes. I don't subscribe to that belief. If I am buying something, it shouldn't take 3 months to receive it just because someone says that is the way it is. Your results may vary.

Well, no there are not just two ways the contract could be structured.

In fact they can structure it where GP serves as an intermediary requiring they be cleared by TSC and requiring all secondary buyers from them also submit and get an EUC from TSC. They take possession of the items and sell them, but sell them under terms that require the buyer to have a completed EUC before taking possession. Further sale within a time limit and payment back to the DLA is a condition of them taking possession.

You are buying from GP, who is selling at the behest of the government, in a sale where taking possession (not buying, but taking possession) is contingent upon your getting an approved EUC.

Title and possession passes to GP CONDITIONALLY only for the purpose of further sale on behalf of the government, they must sell it under specified terms and return a percentage of the proceeds to the government.

The EUC is not actually part of the bid. I knew of cases before the GL/GP days where someone made a purchase, paid, and immediately resold before the EUC went in and the second buyer submitted the EUC in his name and took possession.

 

[Chief_919]

FYI, here is a copy of the IFB for the contract. While not the final contract, it tells you how it is structured and the terms http://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Docu...es/sales/cv4/DISP_CV4RMasterIFB92_151103.docx

GP pays an upfront fee for all property sent to them based on a percentage of the governments acquisition price. This payment is due the 15th of each month for the preceding month. It doesn't matter if the property has been sold or not. it doesn't matter if the government paid a crazy price and the condition is such that the vehicle is essentially scrap or the vehicle or item is mint new, the percentage is the same.

GP then pays a percentage of the final sale price- the actual percentage not listed here because the parties were bidding and whoever paid the most got the contract- due also the 15th of the following month. The contract makes no allowance for delays in payment depending on EUC clearance. the payment is due the 15th of the month following the month of the sale, period.

So if GP gets possession of a truck on May 25th they must pay DLA a percentage of the new cost of that truck on June no matter if it has been sold yet. Then if they sell that truck on June 30th by July 15th they must pay DLA a percentage of the sale price.

Later in the contract you will see they are also contractually obligated to facilitate the EUC process and not release any property until a proper EUC has been issued if it is required. At no point do they allow for delay of payment to DLA based on EUC time in the contract.

So when you said "My guess is GP holds the revenue making interest until the EUC is complete which would explain why they are in no rush." you could not be more wrong. First, they pay monthly regardless, second they don't control the speed at which EUC's are done, that is all in the hands of DA civilian bureaucrats. And you know how much DA civilians care about getting anything done fast.|

You should probably research more before making accusations like that. It too me all of 3 minutes to find that info.

 

[Chief_919]

If anyone wants even more background on the contract process, here is the ruling when GL contested the award of the contract to IP.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665194.pdf

Interesting to note that IP won the bid by just .25%