Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by C Culham

  1. @Don Mansfield – As I understand the new 252.215-7010 clause exceptions to cost or price data are – prices set by law/regulation and commercial item.  As provided by the 252.215-7013 provision a product/service of a non-traditional defense contractor is treated as if, but is not, a commercial item.  

    My read is that a non-traditional defense contractor only exists if the CO determines prior to the solicitation stage that there companies out there that are non-traditional defense contractors.  After that, lets say prior to award but after solicitation closes or even after award (modification), a contractor could not say they are a non-traditional contractor and propose that they do not have to provide cost or pricing data.

    Conclusion on my part - Market research and the CO electing to take the “may” option and solicits the need (otherwise a non-commercial item) under FAR Part 12 provides the only opportunity for a non-traditional defense contractor to not provide certified cost or pricing data.   There is no provision or clause that allows after the CO’s initial determination at solicitation for a contractor to say I am  a non-traditional defense contractor that allows the CO to say yep you are right and cost or pricing data is not required.  Exception would be if the CO was convinced that market research was flawed and many non-traditional’s were competing and change the solicitation to a commercial item acquisition.

  2. @here_2_help @joel hoffman- I tried editing my posts.   I still may not have it right with regard to the competition matter and appreciate your reminders.  Maybe I should delete both quite honestly.

    I still get back to the "may".   It just seems to me that beyond the new provision at 252.215-7013 there is no allowance for a business to state that they believe they are a non-traditional defense contractor, which then bothers me in how, in other than a set-aside, as a result of market research a CO might think they will reach non-traditional defense contractors and elect to use the "may" allowance.

    Leads me the conclusion that supports Don's blog that the new category of non-traditional defense contractor will only be considered when a small business set-aside is determined?

  3. I had the same thoughts of h2h about who would adopt the "may" option and then I began thinking about the CO that does want take advantage of the "may" and played it out in my mind.  Not sure I have it right but....

    First scenario -

    1. The DoD does market research.

    2. It determines that there adequate small businesses to set aside the procurement.

    3. All small businesses are non-traditional defense contractors so the DoD decides to use Commercial Item acquisition procedures without having to do a commercial item determination.

    4. Offers responding do not have to provide Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

    Or another-  

    1. The DoD does market research.

    2. DoD determines not to set aside and it is a procurement that does not use Commercial Item acquisition procedures.

    3. The DoD also determines that adequate competition will not occur and includes DFARS Clause 252.215-7070.

    4. A small business responds and states it is a non-traditional defense contractor and states that it is not providing certified cost or pricing data.

    5. The CO treats the supplies/services of the non-traditional defense contractor as if they are commercial items and agrees that cost or pricing data is not required. 

    In the first scenario I think I have it right but what about the second one?   It seems that DoD has forgotten or has on purpose failed to give the “may” option to CO’s with regard to DFARS Clause 252.215-7010 as there is no exception available to the CO if the offeror is a non-traditional DoD contractor.

  4. Don - Not associated with an agency so did not go through the matrix in detail for an incentive, or at least that is my excuse.  Quick thoughts.....

    I suspect you went to a lot of work to create and it would take same to maintain as the FAR/DFAR and additional 31 Agency Supplements change.  I wonder if the effort is worth it when many depend on database programs to assemble the solicitation/contracts these days?  Clearly it would help in explaining why something is in a solicitation/contract but being from the old school days the matrix was handy in preparing the solicitation/contract as well.  Consider a connected effort in using the WIFCON poll discussion topic and ask how many folks refer to the matrix at all these days and why or why not?

    An associated thought -  does your format help the private sector in understanding why a provision/clause ended up in a solicitation that they are considering?  To an extent yes, but my thought extends to both sides of the fence.  Personal experience admittedly but I find that if I have to go read the prescription under the current format I then find myself wading through the clause and even the details of the FAR/DFAR further.   I wonder if for lack of better term this "cause and effect" gets lost some how if you make it too easy for folks on the prescription?

    Even with these thoughts I do think your suggested format is good idea. 

  5. Two quick thoughts from my first read which are spin-offs of those already offered.

    The example is an easy read and would be useful but I wonder what the view/document might look like when you get to another FAR Part that has a significant amount of DFAR/PGI/Class Deviations?

    Not sure if my personal experience is completely up to date and this thought varies from office to office but have visited some where folks have two screens from which they view the FAR and an agency's supplement side by side.   Understand the DoD has the PGI as well but with this thought in mind I am having some difficulty in wrapping my mind around how the proposed idea would work for the two screen folks.



  6. Noting reference 12.301(B )(1) and its further reference to 12.302 it would be important in my view to describe how the proposed tailored provision would be added by addenda which in part may go to the title of the proposed tailored provision. By example adding something to header – Addenda to FAR Clause 52.212-1 – and add a lead in paragraph that provides that “52.212-1 is replaced in its entirety by this addenda.” Minor I know and one would hope that users of the format would know the mechanics but you would be surprised!

  7. Vern - Just a little confusing with regard to use of "government" including when capitalized and not. Most references seem to be to the Federal sector but then other times not. With intent for wide audience and application includes state/local government it might be good to differentiate. If just intended for the Federal sector side of government so noting would clairfy as well.

    First rate document.


  8. Great ideas but I fear that the that persuading Congress, which is really persuading their legislative aides who have no idea whatsoever what Federal procurement/acquisition is all about, is a pipe dream. Why? Because it is these very same folks that have gotten us, in part, to where we are today with their attempts to make procurement/acquisition right sided.....dazed and confused!