HigherEd123

If one has a cost reimburseable contract with the CIA for research and development (and if anyone has done business with this agency, you will know they are anything less than willing to explain themselves when they administer contracts, you can't even get the prescriptions for their agency specific clauses they insert) and one purchases equipment under said contract, but there is no Government Property clause, or anything else that addresses equipment, the allowability of the purchase of said equipment, or who owns title to the equipment, then who owns it? I might add that permission was sought and received from the CO to purchase such equipment. Just wondering if anyone has dealt with a similiar situation in the past.

I recently read an article by Kate M. Manual, who is a legislative attorney for the Congressional Research Service (the congressional think tank that writes information and policy papers for federal review, it helps them make decisions, basically) in which she describes several types of contracts as described in Part 16 of the FAR. In it, she describes ID/IQ contracts as "providing for the contract to deliver goods or services to the procureing activity at future dates unspecified at the time of contracting." For basic ordering agreements, she says they are used " when the procuring activity anticpiates acquiring a sustantial, but presently unknown, quanities of goods and services." Besides the fact that a BOA is technically not a contract, what is the difference between the two? Why would you use an ID/IQ in one procurement activity, and a BOA in another? Is one more appropriate than the other?

For those of you who have been in federal contracting a while....... FAR 52.219-9 says "the offeror, upon request of the contracting officer, shall submit..." a subcontracting plan prior to the award. That plan is to be included in the resultant contract. The clause is to be inserted into contracts in which (for my organizations purposes) the contract amount is expected to reach $650K or higher. However, we have several contracts in which the CO inserted this clause, but awarded the contract without requesting the plan, therefore one was never inserted into our contract. (I realized this should have been addressed long ago, but it wasn't, and here we are.) Our accounting office is insisting we are out of compliance, and that we should go back to the government and try to either "negotiate" the term out (??) or create a subcontracting plan and submit it to the CO (even though we've already been awarded the contract and the CO has never requested it) which will, of course, require us to start reporting on the the 294/295. I can't for the life of me figure out why we have to do this, when the FAR is fairly clear that the plan shall be submitted upon request of the CO, prior to the award, and incorporated into the resultant contract. Am I misguided??

I'm wondering if a clause is inserted into a contract, yet never enforced by the CO, such as 52.219-9, is the university still liable to comply (in this case, have a subcontracting plan on file that we can show proof we've followed.)

I'm a contracts specialist at an educational institution, and we are grappling with a question about compliance. We have FAR 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) inserted into various federal contracts. I see that as part of this clause, "The offeror, upon request by the Contracting Officer, shall submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan". Later, the clause indicates that this plan will be made part of the resultant contract. My question is this: If the CO never requested the plan, never made it part of the agreement, then is the University still out of compliance if we never submitted one? Do we now need to go back and pull every contract this is part of and make these 'backdated' subcontracting plans and then notify our CO? Many of these awards are well into the period of performance. Thank you for any assistance anyone can provide.