Retreadfed

Don't automatically assume that the airfare costs are unallowable in whole or in part. This is what FAR 31.205-46 actually says: Airfare costs in excess of the lowest priced airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours are unallowable except when such accommodations require circuitous routing, require travel during unreasonable hours, excessively prolong travel, result in increased cost that would offset transportation savings, are not reasonably adequate for the physical or medical needs of the traveler, or are not reasonably available to meet mission requirements.

Have you read FAR 15.405?

And true.

To award a contract or to modify a contract?

We don't know if 2FARgone works for DoD so that this memo would apply in his/her case. (S)he made an initial post then seems to have disappeared which is too bad because there are a lot of things we do not know about his/her situation.

"Unless otherwise specified- (3) Contracting officers may, at their discretion, include the changes in any existing contract with appropriate consideration." What does unless otherwise specified apply to here? In the context of 52.204-25 does it mean that contracting officers do not have discretion to add the clause but they must add it? If that is what it means, does it follow that the clause must be added without consideration? Nothing in the clause prescription at 4.2105 indicates that consideration is not required if the clause is added to a contract that was award

Joel, the original post concerned the contractor's refusal to provide certain representations and to accept a clause being added to its contract. These are different issues from whether the government can exercise the option. To me, the government cannot exercise the option if the conditions in 4.2102 are present without a waiver regardless of whether the contractor makes the representations in 52.204-24 and -26, or if 52.204-25 is in the contract. What point are you trying to make concerning "Unless otherwise specified"?

FAR 1.108(d) says in part "Contracting officers may, at their discretion, include the changes in any existing contract with appropriate consideration." If the contract was awarded before 52.204-25 became effective and the agency wants to add the clause now, it seems to me that the contractor may be entitled to receive "appropriate consideration."

Vern, it may matter in the context of 2FARgone's question. One of his/her concern's is the contractor's refusal to agree to accept 52.204-25 in the contract. If the contract is for commercial items, the contract should contain FAR 52.212-5. The Aug 2019 version of that clause contains the Aug 2019 version of 52.204-25. If 52.212-5 is in the contract and included 52.204-25, there would be no reason to include 52.204-25 as a separate clause. On the other hand, if the contract is not for commercial items, but was awarded prior to 52.204-25 becoming effective, we have the situation where the

2 FAR, what is your contract for? Is it for commercial items? If so, is FAR 52.212-5 in the contract? What version?

I am confused by this statement. The date of 52.204-25 is Oct 2020. I have not checked to see if there was an earlier version, but if there was not, was your contract issued before the clause became effective? If so, are you now trying to add the clause to the contract and the contractor is balking?

Chil, is the GFP suitable for its intended use, but there is other equipment that would be more efficient? How is the contract priced? How do you know that the software developed on the high-end laptops would work properly on the government equipment?

Dot, you need to read the clause at FAR 52.219-27. Then read 13 CFR 125.6. You will note that there is a substantial difference in the limitation on subcontracting found in the two regulations. Many agencies have granted deviations to 52.219-27 so that the language from the SBA regs is applied to contracts awarded by that agency. You need to check to see if the agency with which you intend to contract has issued such a deviation. If so, you do not need to be concerned with the definition of "employee."

Maybe not if you recall that the Field Marshal was publicly humiliated by Stalin for being more popular than he was.

My recollection is that DoE requires the use of specific union labor by contractors working on DoE's nuclear facilities. The reason given is that the union has a training program that is necessary for work on the unique facilities.