Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. You can try this: http://www.ecfr.gov/ The FAR is in Title 48. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a search function or, if it does, I haven't figured it out. I hope the Farsite problem is temporary. I frequently use it and find it superior to the ecfr site. Farsite has (or, at least, it had) deviations and other information that's lacking from other resources I'm aware of.
  2. A reason contractors don't want to get involved in CAS-covered contracts is that there's a cost involved. You have to set up, in effect, two sets of books, one that complies with GAAP for financial accounting and another that complies with CAS for government cost accounting. Plus, there's a cost involved in dealing with disclosure statements, changes to accounting practices, etc.
  3. You might want to check that your plan to "cut down on fee" is the right way to go about this. DoD, at least, has announced that it is not targeting contractor's profits as a means to reduce costs. See, for example, this statement by Shay Assad: "Some people have misinterpreted what better buying power is all about. There are people that want to believe this is an attack on profitability, and that's not the case at all," he said. "What we're telling our contracting officers is that they need to use profitability as means to incentivize industry to reduce their costs." http://www.federalnewsradio.com/394/2846488/DoD-faces-struggles-on-path-toward-better-buying-power
  4. For DoD, DFARS 225.770 prohibits purchase of items covered by the United States Munitions List from Communist Chinese military companies (and many companies in China would be covered by the defintion of that term). Other than that, if the BAA or TAA don't apply, I know of no prohibition on purchasing something from China. Indeed, the need to have this specific DFARS provision suggests that there isn't some over-riding prohibition -- if there was, you wouldn't need DFARS 225.770. GSA takes the position that sales under its FSS contracts will exceed the TAA threshhold and, thus, it includes the TAA clause in them. I've never seen any GSA FSS contract provision saying that you can make a "micropurchase" off a GSA schedule and purchase something from China. Such an item shouldn't be on the schedule.
  5. Vern, If I understand the scenario, this is a pre-award concern. There's no contract dispute and you can't submit a CDA claim to the CO for an interpretation of the contract. The bid protest route would seem to be available. OLG
  6. It's generally up to the parties to the protest to decide what is to be covered under a protective order, with GAO deciding if the parties cannot agree. Given the timing of things, it's rare though that GAO gets involved in such disputes in time to provide a redacted copy of the agency report to the protester to prepare its comments on the report. In my experience, though, comparative scores generally are covered under a protective order.
  7. If XYZ, Inc. is just now starting to think about "complying with government contract rules and regulations," it may have a problem. It's been subject to most of them all along. There are only a few things (e.g., Cost Accounting Standards, small business subcontracting plan requirements) that a small business is exempt from.
  8. See the article in Volume 43, No. 2 of the Procurement Lawyer, Winter 2008. It addresses this issue, in part.
  9. Sorry 'bout the Smiley face. It sure wasn't there when I pressed reply -- that was supposed to be a reference to paragraph b of the clause. How do you turn off these Smiley faces??????
  10. This is a quirk in the regs. FAR 52.215-12(a) requires the prime to obtain certified cost or pricing data from the sub "on the date of agreement on price or the date of award, whichever is later." So, the prime is required to get updated cost or pricing data from you, but it shouldn't have any effect on the price of the prime contract, which has already been awarded. Why the government requires this is a mystery, at least to me. But, if you've already agreed on the subcontract price, you could point to 52.215-12( B ) and say that your data only needs to be accurate, complete and current "as of the date of agreement on the negotiated price of the subcontract." Knowing how most primes behave, however,I would guess that they haven't agreed on price and hope to ratchet down your proposed subcontract price. There's no need to copy the government (and the prime probably wouldn't want you to, especially if your rates have gone down).
  11. The ABA Public Contract Law Section's "Guide to Service Subcontract Terms and Conditions" has a section setting out what it felt were mandatory or advisable reps and certs. Although it focuses on service contracts, it should give you a place to start.
  12. This could happen if the nonmanufacturer rule has been waived for the required items and the offeror is a nonmanufacturer. Sure, but I don't think there are any class waivers covering computers & monitors, and it would seem quite a bit of work for the contracting officer to get an individual waiver prepared.
  13. Note that the question I posed dealt with how much a small business subcontractor could further subcontract, not how much a small business prime could subcontract or, under the nonmanufacturer rule, to whom it could subcontract and/or obtain supplies. And, the requirements of the non-manufacturer rule don't apply to small business subcontractors, see 13 CFR 121.406(e), so it doesn't limit from whom the subcontractor buys the supplies it provides under its subcontract. (But, I've also never figured out how a small business prime delivering hardware under a set-aside or an 8(a) could provide a large businesses' equipment, unless the contracting officer characterized it as a "services" contract under which the contractor is also supplying equipment.)
  14. [i posted this last week in the "Subcontracts and Subcontract Management" discussion area, but didn't get much of a reaction, so I thought I'd try reposting it here. Maybe it will catch the interest of people more focused on small business issues.] A prime contract awarded to a small business on a small business set-aside procurement generally requires the small business prime to perform at least 50% of the work. That’s implemented by the Limitations on Subcontracting clause, 52.219-14. If the prime serves as a "front" for a large business and passes the vast bulk of the work through to the large business, it violates the clause and may find itself the subject of a criminal action based on fraud. How does it work on the subcontract level? Here’s the scenario: A prime contractor has a small business subcontracting plan, requiring it to make a good faith effort to award some amount of subcontracts to various types of small businesses. Is there any problem (for the prime, the sub, or the sub’s sub) if the prime awards the subcontract to a small business, and that small business then passes the vast bulk of the work through to a large business? Put another way, is there anything wrong with a small business acting as a "front" for a large business with respect to the performance of a subcontract that the prime is awarding as part of satisfying its small business subcontracting plan. There’s no requirement for the prime to include the Limitations on Subcontracting clause in the subcontract – it’s not a required flowdown – so there’s no contract violation. I’ve certainly heard stories about this happening. Although it’s always made me feel a bit uncomfortable, I’ve never been able to identify anything that makes it illegal, a contract violation, or otherwise improper. Can you?
  • Create New...