Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dennismcgowan

  • Rank
  1. Gentlemen, I fully realize the vagueness in my question and the desire of contracting professionals to have as much detail as possible. The product in question is food. Various types. Failure would be the inability of the government provider (supply system) to deliver the food. That is a much as I can provide, unfortunately.
  2. Follow up. My question isn't about contingent liabilities. I am have a recollection of a prohibition against using contracts as back ups, or safety nets from the stand point of doing so largely being a waste of valuable 1102 time.
  3. Folks, It has been some time since I posted here, but I need a hand. My concern is a customer wishes to use a contract as a back up to the existing logistics system being employed. I remember reading in the FAR, DFARS or AFARS that contracts will not be used as a contingency against the failure of an existing contract or other manner of receiving support. Does anyone have a similar recollection? Thanks!
  4. Vern- Thanks for the reply. Admittedly, I missed the clause. DOH! That is what I get for working past 2100! What I will coach my folks to do in the future when dealing with MATO contract is avoid the local caluse and fully address the maximum in the schedule (as the clause requires) being sure to explain it as the total maximum of all MATO contracts. That way, the individual contract holders understand their maximum is the shared MATO maximum. Of course if this was a requirements contract I was speaking of, 52.216-21 -- Requirements, would apply and the max is the single max.
  5. It seems the Government may wish to define, in a standard fashion, the total contract program maximum amount (maximum sum of all orders against associated MATO contracts) in its Indefinite Quantity contracts (FAR Part 16.5). Sometimes this is referred to as the ?MATOC ceiling?. Typically, I have seen the maximum amount defined in a locally derived clause. It seems efficient and effective to develop a standard clause similar to the way the FAR standardizes the language regarding Ordering (FAR 52.216-18 ? Ordering) and Order Limitations (FAR 52.216-19 -- Order Limitations). Does anyone know why there isn?t a ?Maximum? clause?