Retreadfed

Is there a government property clause in the contract? If so, what does it say about the consequence of the government changing the amount of GFP?

If the target price and ceiling price are different and the government has only obligated funds to cover the target price, is there already a clause in the contract that limits the government's liability to the target price? It seems strange that the government would include an amount you are entitled to be paid under the contract and not obligate funds to cover that liability. On what authority does the CO plan to unilaterally add the clause?

This seems like a personal problem for the employees that is to be resolved between the employee and contractor. Why is the government getting involved?

Mike, do you have any insight into what type of "contract" GAO might have had in mind when it made this statement? For example, FAR 2.101 contains a definition of a procurement contract. However, there are other types of contracts that are not covered by the FAR such as support contracts.

Curious, (b)(2) is an exception to (b)(7). If a contractor provides a commercial item that it produces, the contractor can bill the government for that item at the contractor's price, which includes profit. Check the MAS contract that you are dealing with. It likely has a GSA version of 52.232-7. That clause would apply to T&M orders under the contract.

Curious, have you looked at FAR 52.232-7(b)(2)?

Curious, OMB Cir. A-21 no longer exists. It was replaced several years ago by the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR 200. Note that 2 CFR is not a regulation but a framework for agencies to use in establishing their rules for grants and cooperative agreements. However, because the FAR has adopted the cost principles in 2 CFR 200, those cost principles are mandatory for FAR contracts with IHEs.

The ASBCA site is up and running now.

I think formerfed has alluded to the answer to your question. What does the BPA say about who can place "orders"?

Of course we don't know what these students do in real life. If they can do the exercise in class, but don't do it in their everyday jobs, knowing why would be a good exercise.

This observation should not be limited to just BAA/TAA. In my experience neither COs nor contract writing software know what clauses should go in specific contracts. I frequently find clauses in contracts that do not belong. Even more egregiously, many contracting officers include solicitation provisions in Section I of contracts.

Why not exercise OY 4? You say the contract is an IDIQ contract. Are you obligated to place any orders in OY 4 or 3? If not, what is the big deal?

What do you mean by "true up"? I have my definition, but I don't know yours. In any event, there is a difference between billing costs and allocating costs. Not all costs allocated to a contract are required to be billed, and in some cases, cannot be billed to the customer. In your situation, are G&A costs being allocated to contracts, both government and commercial, on the basis of base costs allocated to those contracts or are you allocating G&A cost on some other basis?

If the RFP/contract does not reference any FAR clauses, is the issuing agency one that is not subject to the FAR, such as the FAA, and one that has its own procurement regulations? If so, which agency is it? Also, are you sure we are talking about a contract and not some other type of instrument?

By DLHs do you mean "direct labor hours"? Also, is the contract a FFP level of effort?

No you are not wrong. However, I would add "properly" before "supported" in your statement. I think we all know that sometimes some contractors commit fraud against the government. This is sometimes done by contractors submitting fraudulent data to support claimed costs.

Neil, if a contractor is required to submit certified cost or pricing data, the first step in this process is determining whether data in the possession of the contractor meets the definition of cost or pricing data. If the data does meet that definition, it needs to be disclosed regardless of whether it fits neatly within one of the 15-2 boxes. I agree that contractors are not required to create data, but if they have it and it meets the definition of cost or pricing data, it needs to be disclosed. In this case, I can see a potential government concern that it is somehow subsidizing the contractor's commercial work.

The FAR does not require such an adjustment. However, that does not mean that the terms of specific contracts might not require such an adjustment. Also, if your company is required to submit certified cost or pricing data, does it disclose the fact that some commercial customers have contract prices based on lower indirect cost rates than those proposed for government contracts?

Thank, you, Jamaal. So the FAR could be clarified by inserting "unless exempted by FAR 9.102," in 9.104-1.

I'm sorry if this seems repetitive, but I don't know what you mean by end. By that do you mean the ending of all rights and obligations of the parties under the contract? If so, I again point out the example I gave of the standard inspection clause where there is no defined end point for the rights and obligation listed in subsection (k) and (l).

Notice that in this case, the GAO held that it was a member of Shivoy's contract team that did not provide evidence of an approved accounting system. There is no indication in the decision that Shivoy the offeror/protester did not have an adequate accounting system. Therefore, the question of whether a COC should have been requested was not implicated nor were the GAO protest decisions concerning the role of traditional responsibility factors that are used as evaluation factors. In this regard, I would like some clarification of this statement in the article "If there is no evaluation factor, agencies may evaluate the adequacy of the cost accounting system as a responsibility factor." As I read FAR 9.104-1, having an accounting system that is adequate for the contract type contemplated is a mandatory responsibility factor.

What do you mean by "closed"? Theoretically, in some circumstances rights and obligations of the parties continue forever. For example, see FAR 52.246-2(k)(l).

The more important question is what are the rights and obligations of the parties once a contract is closed? Assume the contract is closed. Would that prevent you from doing what you indicate you want to do in this case?

That is the pertinent question. Does the contract incorporate the EM? Contractors are responsible for complying with the terms of their contracts. If the EM is not actually incorporated in the contract, I say contractors do not have to comply. In this regard, see FAR 52.236-13(c).

Why should erroneous solicitation terms apply? Is there a difference between erroneous terms and impermissible terms?