C Culham

So by contract vehicle agreement you mean the parent IDIQ under which the Task Order was issued? If yes then is FAR 52.216-18 in the parent IDIQ? If yes see paragraph (b) of the clause - (b) All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the event of conflict between a delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall control.

Your two posts are lacking substance to allow for constructive responses. By example - Are your sure this statement is in the PWS and not in an inspection clause in the contract? This is not a FAR clause. A FAR Clause begins with 52. Example 52.212-4. I suspect this thread will wind along but the quick view is what is the contract for - a completed project or for labor/time hours? If completed project then your idea might fly but in all honestly there is a lot more that needs to be known about the contract before a better response can be provided. Maybe one place to start - Is FAR Clause 52.216-1 in your contract and if so what does it exactly say?

Just being nit picky. "Do you want a result or contractor labor?"

Thanks Vern. From my view SBA "administers" a couple of other programs where Congress has established criteria, yet it would seem that the limited power vested in SBA is just a nice shine. The control in reality will not rest in the directive but what an agency does much like the 8(a) Program. Probably even the SBA loan Program while not administered by agencies the banks that do control. Afterall in all three cases its "their" money and he who holds the gold........

(g)

Reading between the lines. SBA is simply the support mechanism. Agencies control their own SBIR programs via Congress direction with regard to R&D money. In the case of a disagreement on who benefits the agency has the say. 15 USC 638 is an interesting read to this extent.

@Vern Edwards@Fara Fasat Does this help - "Each agency administers its own individual program within guidelines established by Congress. These agencies designate R&D topics in their solicitations and accept proposals from small businesses. Awards are made on a competitive basis after proposal evaluation." Reference https://www.sbir.gov/about Here is DoD's stuff, from what I have read there are a 11 other agencies that will have their own stuff. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jan/12/2002920964/-1/-1/1/DoD_Annual_SBIR_224.PDF Edited my original post as I was reading somewhere else and saw this. Makes me think the rule bar regarding SBIR might be raised even further. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/09/15/congress-races-to-reauthorize-innovation-grants-favored-by-pentagon/

Some how a post I did got lost in transit. With regard to the clause see the part about Seniority at paragraph (n). Also give this a read -

See 52.222-41 if in the contract.

Thinking out loud. I am with Vern with my additional thought is yes a sub can be a university, Federal lab, private business therefore SBIR rights not just limited to a small business. Reference - https://www.sbir.gov/tutorials/preparing-proposal/tutorial-4

Agreed minor matter in the scheme of things but your comments above made me wonder which is what I do a lot. So how does say GAO reference it in protests? Here is one example and no doubt there many more and probably splitting hairs as well. https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-419865.2.pdf

This may help...here is how it is stated via a FAR clause that is required in procurements over the SAT (emphasis added). "Definitions (Jun 2020) When a solicitation provision or contract clause uses a word or term that is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the word or term has the same meaning as the definition in FAR 2.101 in effect at the time the solicitation was issued, unless- (a) The solicitation, or amended solicitation, provides a different definition; (b) The contracting parties agree to a different definition; (c) The part, subpart, or section of the FAR where the provision or clause is prescribed provides a different meaning; (d) The word or term is defined in FAR part 31, for use in the cost principles and procedures; or (e) The word or term defines an acquisition-related threshold, and if the threshold is adjusted for inflation as set forth in FAR 1.109(a), then the changed threshold applies throughout the remaining term of the contract, unless there is a subsequent threshold adjustment; see FAR 1.109(d)."

No disagreement with ji just some added substance. You may want to read the following noted protest in total. Noting that you conducted the procurement under FAR Part 13 policies a debriefing is not required (FAR 8, 12, 13 and 14 do not require debriefings) but you may want to consider the wording at FAR 13.106-3 (c) & (d) as to what needs to occur with regard to sharing information about the award. Here is the protest decision https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-414220.2.pdf Here in part is what it says - "Furthermore, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, we do not find that FAR clause 52.212-1(l) is inconsistent with this conclusion. Specifically, that clause sets forth the information that will be disclosed “[i]f a post-award debriefing is given to requesting offerors.” Id. It does not, however, establish when an agency is to provide a debriefing. Rather, consistent with the provisions of FAR § 12.102(b), whether a debriefing is to be given depends on the relevant policies and procedures that were applicable to the procurement (i.e., FAR Part 13, 14, or 15)."

So having followed this thread something just keeps coming up in my head. Good faith and fair dealing. I know the example in this thread is not exactly on target to the ideal but I wonder. What ever happened with going to the other party hat in hand and having a serious conversation about the issue and work out an agreement (dare I say supplemental agreement noting that the FAR does not apply) that covers everyone's interests. I am not talking about giving up rights, which I would put plainly on the table, I am talking about a honest conversation that nobody wants to destroy the rights of the other under the contract but yet preserve them while still settling the matter at hand. Formal mediation of the matter even. After all the FAR and disputes act does not cover the transaction or so we are told so handle it like you would an every day matter. If it doesn't work then you are into the matters of default, claim, dispute, litigation, etc. it seems that hands are wringing over what might be rather than a specific position that has been taken. Honest good faith and fair dealing has worked as well in saving a lot of money in contract matters.

So call me dumb and thats fine but I am wondering if there is a reach to this situation via a GFP clause that might be in the contract that would remedy the future unknown costs the OP is wondering about?

@rios0311 So I am confused just a little. You say "Can the Government..." Then you reference UCC and say FAR and Disputes Act does not apply. Then you reference "We have a contract...." So do you have a contract or a lease. Who are "We". What "Government" is involved? As to the Contract Disputes Act, are you sure? Reference http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2308.Opinion.7-31-2017.1.PDF I am with Vern as noted you have not provided enough detail.

I believe you are actually talking about a "dispute" not a protest. The dispute clause of a Federal contract is a remedy for either party. As to case law demonstrating its use as you inquire I will leave that to others to respond.

So as the thread fades into the sunset I have some final thoughts which come to me in part based on the quoted highlights. Forgotten by legal and in the context of a 8(a) sole source is FAR 19.8, and here I will add 13 CFR 124 as well as the Small Business Act must be considered. I will not bore you with quotes but I highly recommend that for the future CaptJax may well want to refer the likes of legal to references in the FAR, CFR 124 and the Act to "Fair Market Price" and how estimating such plays a big role in the price agreement of an 8(a) sole source. In fact I could see a PNM (FAR 15.406-3) that highlights references from each. As I did early on I would suggest that when it comes to 8(a) sole source while FAR 15.4 has a role that role must be woven with appropriate principles of FAR 19.8, associated regulation and statute. I will be bold and suggest that for the particular project that is the subject of this thread that the POM might be one and the same as the current fair market price estimate.

Opps my bad I should have said Venezuela🤣

360 back to the post where I stated this - "No regulation prohibits G&A on travel but the solicitation/contract language might." Conclusion an attempt to reduce the cost of the contract. It just seems if the intent is that only actual travel costs will be paid absent G&A then in a very simplistic view the contractor is left holding the bag where they would incur G&A that they would normally recoup in doing business. That said I do understand there are ways that they might otherwise recoup such as increasing the profit on the FFP CLINs in the contract whereby they are assuming a risk not known for what travel is really going to be required and the G&A that goes along with it. From a regulation side it would seem that "Actual Cost" is the cost of the travel and would include G&A because it is a "standard cost" based predetermined measures but I am betting that is not what the Government wants to pay. Ticket to Jamaica $1500 , Government pays $1500. A CLIN whose wording would need the entire context of the contract to figure out with my conclusion there is cost saving thinking behind it.

But there is as stated by the OP - "The name of the travel CLIN is "Travel & ODCs - Reimbursement for Actuals."" I know the thread has run its course but it would seem that the discussion is not really about such things as G&A, Actuals, ODC's etc. it is about a scheme to reduce the cost of the contract with regard to travel. Overall the whole issue depends on the specifics of the instant contract, at least one would hope so, and not on a read of the regulations.

Interesting. So how about 52.212-4 with its Alternate I? And if so what is the exact language of 52.212-4 Alt I?

You do not have to be convinced but I appreciate the ability to respond. I understand where you are coming from yet I still believe your premise is off base. Rather than address each of the terms and conditions you note which I would imagine all may not be in a contract say to build your house, consider this. Service Contract Act. While I understand there is a difference in such things as payrolls and basic records SCA does carry requirements unique to a Federal contract. A read of FAR clause 52.222-41 will support my view. Do you believe that a service contract, like janitorial, is not a commercial item contract, since SCA is required? I do know that GSA for FSS fought the battle and lost wherein their commercial contracts require SCA and it seem that most if not all agencies put SCA in commercial item contracts.

No regulation prohibits G&A on travel but the solicitation/contract language might. It depends. Find this it may or may not help -https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-9904-cost-accounting-standards#Section_9904_410_T48_70102650192 More specifics as to why you are asking question might help. Already asked was post award invoices but then the type of contract might matter too such as a T&M contract.

Oh I get it and I have had this argument thrown at me before. Throw a dang term and condition in a contract that you as the owner (dare I say CO) feels that they have no enforcement power over. If so why put in at all? I guess when you build a house and your contract requires the contractor to comply with all state and local laws and codes and the contractor fails to do so you will just say "whatever" and move along! Or, wait will you take contractor to task, even ask for a change in price if they don't. Sanity check is correct and your suggestion is insanity.