Reciffo Laredef

Thanks for the tips, Vern. I saw MegB's last sentence as an extension of the question - an inquiry into where and at what level the determination should be made that perhaps other experienced government employees could chime in on - rather than self-pity. But I suppose that's my fault.

To be a substantial transformation there must be a new and different end product. For instance, attaching handles to a pot would not be sufficient. Ralph C. Nash, INTERPRETING THE TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT: Conflicting Decisions 22 No. 8 Nash & Cibinic Rep. 45, 2008. It seems as if your offerors are attempting to show that their products are, in fact, US made end products because they are "manufactured in the United States" (the first part of the definition at 25.003 that you left off in your first post) so that under the procedures at 225.403©(i) and 225.502( B )(i), you can give them equal priority.

Can you explain what you mean by "items that are under the TAA" and "Iterms are from a country that is not part of the TAA"? Otherwise, if the items are from a country that is not a signatory of the WTO GPA or an FTA, then the BAA is not waived and it's the BAA's definition of "domestic end product" that should determine your course of action.

If a DoD Contracting Officer has a procurement for COTS construction and building materials (FSC 56 - a WTO GPA/CAFTA category in DFARS 225.401-70) to use for exercise-related construction during a JCS exercise in Honduras and the contract is valued at $80,000 (exceeding the $77,494 threshold at the FAR 25.402 table), does he have to publish the solicitation for 40 days pursuant to FAR 5.203(h)? (The procurement is not set aside for small businesses). If the answer is "yes," why then, when so many categories of supplies are covered by the GPA and other FTAs, would the thresholds at FAR 25.402 not result in similar 40-day solicitation periods in many more procurements, whether for performance CONUS or OCONUS? It seems that response times are too short and that the government ignores this across the board. Or is there some other exception that they are using but of which we are unaware? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.

Yes, that risk. Because our presumptions always come to fruition, because hope springs eternal, and because nothing ever goes awry, would it be better to say, "Contracting Officers should be more than capable of managing this low, low, low, low, low, almost non-existent, level of risk"? Ultimately, I agree that it should not become an issue.

Whether by DCAA, CPA, or even an MFA, it's a weak CYA anyway. No doubt the contractor will work the cost of the review into his pricing/overhead. But that's no different than how they recoup the costs of complying with any other government requirement. The offeror likely is already paying for the same or similar services for which the accounting firm has already charged it. Given the time value of money and the paucity of other options for obtaining quality reviews, however, it may be less expensive to require the offerors to provide their own certifications. Require certain credentials if it's important and make them apply the same standards as a DCAA audit or whatever level of comfort the Contracting Officer thinks the situation warrants. The resultant review may be better or it might be worse than what DCAA would have provided. If it turns out to have been bad, the government can invoke its remedies and the contractor can take whatever action it deems appropriate against its accounting firm. Nevertheless, Contracting Officers should be more than capable of managing this low level of risk.