AmericanJan

By “leveraging”, I was just meaning using SEWP terms or terms associated with GSA terms without negotiating or adding terms. We are authorized and encouraged to use SEWP, GSA, ICTP, etc. agreements and I was wondering if everyone else flows down their mandatory terms or use the agreements as-is.

For any M&O contractors, how do you typically handle mandatory flowdowns from your prime contract when you leverage (use) SEWP, GSA, ICTP, etc. agreements? Do you add them to the agreement or not?

We have always treated them as non-commercial and will likely continue to do so; there have been no changes there. It is still a discussion topic. I did read a couple of blog posts surrounding the question, but it seems there are very divided opinions on the subject and I was unable to find many finite examples of a federal contractor treating university services as commercial. It seems as though there is at least some agreement in the community that the definition of commercial may be successfully applied in some circumstances. However, it seems like a few organizations have pondered the question and a lot of folks have an opinion, but no one has any real examples--only hypothetical situations. I was hoping to find some examples to discuss with my team.

Can you guys give me some examples of items you have deemed non-commercial and why you consider them non-commercial? I've read a lot of info regarding commerciality determination and I am looking specifically for some solid examples of non-commercial and why/how you made the determination that it is non-commercial.

Is university research considered a commercial item? Why or why not, and have you had experience arguing commerciality of research as a commercial service? Technically we could hire any commercial research firm to perform research and provide data, but prefer to partner with a university. What might be arguments against or for the research being considered a commercial item?

I have a question about whether or not it is ok (ethically or otherwise) to agree to the following: "If the sidewalk issue is handled as a separate mod, would you install the brackets in lieu of the tiling pattern as a no cost change?" Basically what has happened is that the government is asking us to change the color on a sidewalk, which is a cost and a material change to the scope of the contract. They also want us to install brackets instead of a patterned tile. I am not sure I am comfortable with the way he stated the question, basically saying if we give you the change order for X on the color of the sidewalk, will you do the brackets for free." Is this acceptable?

Yes, this is an A-E contract. and yes, we are required to flow them down. No associated clause, this is a requirement set forth in the SOW.

I agree. I am having a hard time convincing folks that there is really no other option.

A/E firm has a service contract with GSA in which GSA has strongly encouraged use of a particular subconsultant. Subconsultant is a WOSDB/sole proprietor and maintains no professional liability insurance, which is a problem since our agreement with GSA requires insurance requirements to flow down. The scope of services for the contract is to prepare drawings. The subconsultant's specific scope would be as a planning consultant. Do I have any options?

Our subcontract is for (A/E) design services. The prime contract does not include FAR 52.212-5.

We are a Subcontractor on a large contract. We are not considered a Small Business. We were not asked to submit a Small Business Plan to the Prime; then a few days ago the prime notified us we were supposed to report. When is a Subcontractor required to submit a Small Business Plan to the Prime? Are we obligated to the expected percentages outlined in the Prime contract? Our flowdowns are 52.219-9 Alt II and 252.219-7003.