C Culham

I am confused. Does not 52.204-26 require this? Onerous or not I think the message of the requirement to check is clear.

My research suggests that it is inclusive of the excluded parties list in SAM.gov. I am not going to take time to research whether all names on the lists I have referenced for you are therefore excluded parties but I suspect they are. So again why worry up front? A contractor is advised to review excluded parties. And the government shall do the review for a contract to award. If you are doing presolicitation research and hear of a firm of concern do the same. And if you are worried about a sub do the same. Reference - https://sam.gov/opp/b2ce0b6998b64976a935e7d5510397bd/view "Offeror shall review the list of excluded parties in the System for Award Management (SAM) (https:// www.sam.gov) for entities excluded from receiving federal awards for covered telecommunications equipment or services."

Yes I did but the second post was in direct response to your question as to whether the list was DoD created? In my first post I posted the "list" in my second post I posted the press release link that provided it. Sorry it frustrated you but I simply answered your question! I would also provide while you may disagree that the list is not Section 889 generated others do. Reference - https://www.pilieromazza.com/dod-releases-new-list-of-section-889-banned-entities/ I will again leave you to your belief but my read and research suggests otherwise. The reference CFR states that FCC's list includes "...Equipment or service being covered telecommunications equipment or services, as defined in section 889(f)(3) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115–232; 132 Stat. 1918); or A specific determination made by an appropriate national security agency;..." Seems relational to me. As I have followed and posted to the thread I have the feeling expressed by others. You are trying too hard to find a "list" of subsidiaries and affiliates and what is before you is it!

delete...stay tuned

@Fara Fasat @ji20874 @formerfed The following portion of this GAO Protest may be of interest as support to the discussion - https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421109%2Cb-421109.2%2Cb-421109.3%2Cb-421109.4 "Compliance with Prohibited Telecommunications Regulations"

Annually - https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3180636/dod-releases-list-of-peoples-republic-of-china-prc-military-companies-in-accord/ Did you read the reference 47 C.F.R. § 1.50000 et seq regarding how the list is prepared and inclusive of?

So I wonder if the protest matter could be used as a determination of nonresponsible? If not then how could it be used in an evaluation matter?

https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/05/2003091659/-1/-1/0/1260H COMPANIES.PDF

I remembered an effort in 2017 related to the National Defense Authorization Act. Took a while to find something. The link is shared below. While not on point to the OP's inquiry it does provide an interesting view that I think is in part the basis for the OP's question. https://www.wiley.law/newsletter-Defense-Industry-Should-Be-Up-in-Arms-Over-Proposed-NDAA-Bid-Protest-Reforms

Oh Don...The systems will handle it so "Whatever"

If you are referring to the term as it relates to the Air Force use of the group and/or term I do not believe so but I did not do extensive research to see when the use of the term was discontinued. There was AFFARS Informational Guidance at one time that used the term (IG5315.503) but it does not look like it is a term currently used.

Others have provided reference with regard to the travel. I picked up on the quoted part of your original post. It made me think of precontract costs. Here is a discussion on WIFCON that helps with regard references regarding precontract costs. Thought I would provide as an assist as well.....

Thoughts To some degree are the soft skills addressed in training made available to all employees? I have always felt that emphasis and due credit was not give appropriate emphasis and credit in implementing the FAC-CO effort. By example see Number 11 of the "Model" on this web page. A .pdf document. https://www.fai.gov/content/fac-c-competencies

No with regard to the FAR. Good for you on your indicated efforts of communicating with CO/COR.

To ji's point maybe something like a key personnel requirement of the contact?

Joel - It is an alternative to consider, just as your "discount" posts are. Nothing more. I am pretty sure it is not, yet the OP did not state either way, but what if the primes contract is recent enough to carry 52.232-40 is it a rabbit hole? Embrace your discount idea as you want but there other alternatives. The OP will decide what is best.

He actually provided a FAR reference to support his statement. Something didnot quote and you clearly have difficulty doing yourself. One more example of the error in your ways. Here is what the clause prescription actually says! Insert clause 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, in all solicitations and contracts. (FAR 32.009-2) Seriously you have taken a Beginners discussion into an abyss of confusion based on less than precise statements and overstatements.

To be direct you keep fanning the flame of your agreement to avoid a statue, prescribed clause with less than precise comments. You said "online" now you defer to "conversations". What is it? Joel is correct that a payment discount offered to the "contractor" may help but in truth the best answer and solution is that which Don offered. Now if Joel's reference is with regard to offering the discount to the Government keep in mind some agencies have stupid rules regarding. My reference is the following plus my contacts established over 40 years. "i once worked for an agency that discouraged taking advantage of a Ktrs discounts because the agency financial software would make you do a "modification" and it was more painful to do the "adjustment" than to pay the 1%. I don't know if you work for such an agency but bottom line is yes you can accept a discount whether there is a clause or not that says you can or can't accept." I'm done I just hope folks don't practice what you preach.

I would like to read. References please. Yes but 52.232-40 is based in statute and while new, 2023, one would think the statutory emphasis would carry some weight. Too bad you are already justifying an agency's noncompliance. By my read of the clause prescription it is an imperative to include and follow. Oh well!

Take a look at this discussion thread

How so? Experience, experience or? The history is short so I am very intrigued about your fist comment. Again the same questions! https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/14/2023-02425/federal-acquisition-regulation-accelerated-payments-applicable-to-contracts-with-certain-small

With the limited details from the Original Poster (OP) I fear they have encumbered themselves to follow FAR part 15. Proof would be seeing exactly how the parent IDIQ describes ordering procedure and how the specific request for offers under Fair Opportunity was fashioned. I did a little research and found this quote in a protest decision to be interesting (I added emphasis). The decision can be found here http://www.wifcon.com/pd16_505b.htm and the protest relates to "SSI". "The ordering provisions of SSI’s contract provide only that the firm be given a fair opportunity to compete, which includes that, upon receipt of proposals the contracting officer may open discussions or negotiate with all or some contractors providing proposals, issue a task order based upon the original proposal furnished, reject the proposal, or cancel the requirement." All said it would seem that the OP should be looking closely at the parent contract and task order request for offers to decide the correct process for canceling the request for offers.

A few have strayed from the original post so I am going to join in. First and foremost Don's post is on target. If your company is a small business another alternative is to be aware of the primes (customer in your post) contract with the Federal government. If the customer's contract has included in it FAR clause 52.232-40 and your relationship is strong enough maybe you could convince the customer to take advantage of the accelerated payment. Contract too old for the clause? Maybe have them consider asking the government to amend the contract to include? PS - FAR 52.232-40 is included in FAR 52.212-5 that goes in commercial item contracts.

Maybe? T&MAF - Pay labor at a set rate (that does not have profit built into the rate), reimburse for materials at actual cost + award fee on scoring criteria CPAF - Reimburse for labor at actual cost, reimburse for materials at actual cost + award fee on scoring criteria

Noting that your post relates to how you do it and how you might counsel your new office on how to do it here you go. If you want elaboration on any of what I have offered please feel to message me via WIFCON's message tool. Have the agency folks review and grasp the FAR and agency supplements regarding 8(a) - FAR 19.8 Alert your agency folks to its SBA Partnership Agreement if one exists to ensure a grasp of compliance with regard agreement that essentially supplements the FAR guidance -https://www.sba.gov/document/support--sba-and-agencies-partnership-agreements Contact the SBA District Office that services your office to develop a relationship - Noted here if your agency has a Procurement Center Representative or other entity that assists keep them in the loop too. Here I just note that if they have had little experience with the 8(a) Program it makes me wonder if the latter exists for your agency. Identify a potential procurement for offering to the 8(a) Program Market Research specific to 8(a) - Armed with a North American Industrial Classification Code (NAICS) number of the potential procurement utilize the Small Business Dynamic Business Search tool to find potential 8(a) firms to name offer the potential project too. https://dsbs.sba.gov/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm Also contact the local SBA District to ask them for suggestions. Once you determine potential entities further research them in the usual internet ways, possibly even CPARS to determine their past performance record, contact the firms you have determined to be best potential to do further assessment - specific reference for this is 13 CFR 124.503(f)(2). I highly suggest that you have agency folks review 124.501 through 124.513 for nuances of the offer/award process beyond the SBA Partnership Agreement and the FAR, including agency supplements. If you like one that you have found then offer the project to the SBA in the name of the firm. You can also do a "open" offering to the program where the SBA matches a firm they believe is appropriate. Just be aware of the nuances of offering a project to the 8(a) Program as there are considerations to make, one especially is attempting to withdraw the project offering. The CFR references already provided are big help here too. Reminders If construction geographical area of the project is a factor in the selection of named offering - 13 CFR 124.501 (many references but see (K)) An estimate for an 8(a) Program offering is to be based on Fair Market Pricing - 13 CFR 124.511 I could probably add details here and there but this is the quick of it. I hope it helps. PS - SDB is different than 8(a). Research it please. 13 CFR 124.1001.