Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

siwilliams

Members
  • Content count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About siwilliams

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  • Birthday 08/07/1970

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    siwilliams94@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Fort Worth, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

4,586 profile views
  1. Thank you for your help here. I agree.
  2. Our company is publicly traded, so there's is a degree of financial transparency there. With regards to counter offers and counter proposals, there were a number of issues we backed off of including the number and size of the pbp payments. Walking away is absolutely and option. However, it's my belief that the Prime is going to be hard pressed to find a commercial item supplier willing to share cost data. I wanted to be sure I wasnt missing a regulatory requirement to supply the data. It appears that the prime considers the two clauses to be business flow downs they are making a business decision to include versus a regulatory requirement they NEED to include for compliance.
  3. It may be mandatory based on the Prime's company policy. But from what I can tell, to say it is a regulatory requirement imposed by tbe govenment isn't true. That is the Prime's argument as they are requesting we share incurred costs with our invoice. That's not somethimg we are willing to do.
  4. Thanks to you both. You have confirmed what Ive repeatedly stated to the Prime. I asked for the reason behind their position and they answered that they see it as a regulatory requiremenr. I've also asked for specific language in the FAR or DFARS and the response is that it is merely their interpretation for what's needed for regulatory compliance but identified no specific language.
  5. My company is a subcontractor negotiating with a prime who has indicated that they have both 252.232-7012 and 52.232-32 in their prime contract. My company is offering a commercial item for which we are requesting milestone payments. The prime has agreed to provide performance based payments in the subcontract but are also asserting that we are required to report cost incurred to date to the prime just as they are required to report to the government per 252.232-7012. They are also asserting that 52.232-32 and 252.232-7012 are mandatory flow downs. I can find nothing to support either assertion. If they are correct in their assertion can someone please direct me to the proper citation?
  6. @PepeTheFrog - Not that it matters but no I'm not a Millennial. Thank you for your referral to the Cibinic/Nash book although also enveloped in condescension. Just so you are aware, I'm perfectly fine in this world and don't find too many scary places. However, those who are truly here to help should be careful not to make this resource a scary place. As far as looking a gift horse in the mouth, I am very grateful for any advice I receive while at the same time finding the superfluous negative commentary disdainful as is your entire post. "Free assistance in performing my job duties" has never been provided to me via this forum...advice yes, but no one has performed my job, i.e. researched topics for me - at least to my knowledge. I have and will continue to pay it forward. I agree with PepeTheFrog that I would hate for the experts to stop contributing. I am always respectful and I welcome the VIPs to my party. I hope that the VIPS realize that everyone is at different levels in the learning process and those of us who are not quite at VIP level are more apt to seek/ can benefit more from the free advice when it doesn't come with a lashing. Respect shouldn't be at the VIP level only.
  7. Again I did read 31.205-46. Because the responder mentioned that I'd misinterpreted the clause, I was hoping for HELP in better understanding it - not requesting extensive consultant services. I read it. I thought on my own. I expressed my thoughts. I was told I was wrong. I wanted to know why I was wrong. So I asked someone to explain HOW I was wrong. Thought that was the purpose of this forum. Apparently I was wrong again. I guess asking about the exception under (a)(2)(i), and (ii) wasn't specific enough. So again my thoughts were wrong. Perhaps a statement saying that it would be "too much to explain the entire cost principle" would have been better received than I will not explain "because I'm not obligated to do so". It's unnecessarily rude. I obviously didn't realize how involved that response would have been. I have never posted anything here with the intent to be offensive or get free assistance in performing my job duties. But I also don't come here to be beat up and/or condescended to - I come here because there are knowledgeable people who have helped me throughout the years. I hope to be able to provide that same level of feedback to those people new to contracts management as well. I don't post here with unrealistic expectations. I certainly did not expect a person to dedicate extensive time and effort to my situation. I use this site as one of many resources. Usually the answers I get are based on the responders experiences and knowledge - not an effort in research. Communication is important. Snide remarks, and rude responses are not effective means of communication. A referral to another resource; a simple "no I can't, the explanation would be too involved"; or simply, ignoring my request all would have been better that the response I received.
  8. Thank you @Retreadfed, I appreciate your helpfulness and willingness to explain. As a contracts professional, I've found this site incredibly useful, especially when more seasoned professionals like yourself are willing to provide guidance. I must say, however, that I'm somewhat baffled by @here_2_help's seemingly antagonistic response. As far as I'm aware, no one on this site is ever "obligated" to explain, comment, or provide feedback. Everyone is volunteer. "Helping" involves a bit more that blanket statements. i.e. that you don't believe I'm interpreting the clause correctly. Specifics on HOW my interpretation is incorrect as was provided in your last post and expounded on by @Retreadfed are much more useful. Thank you for your statements 1, 2, and 3. As for your last sentence @here_2_help, nothing in any of my communications above would imply that you are obligated to do ANYTHING. I simply requested your help and guidance as a more seasoned (platinum member) on a topic I'm trying to better understand. I'm definitely ok with that being the end of your comments on that or any other question I may present.
  9. @Retreadfed The only FAR flow downs we accepted in our subcontract were those listed under 52.244-6. However, your response brings up another question. I'm fairly new to the company and most of my background is non-commercial so the FAR 12 procurement process is really new to me. My supervisor has stressed to me that if the order at the prime was not a FAR 12 procurement then none of the 52.212 provisions would be applicable even though at the subcontract level we are providing commercial products/services - is that not the case? Also, @here_2_help, please explain the requirements of 31.205-46 to me with regards to travel limitations and the exception under (a)(2)(i), (ii)?
  10. My company has a time and materials contract for which we are a first tier subcontractor. The prime contract is not a FAR 12 procurement. The prime contractor wanted to include a requirement in the contract that travel would be subject to the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). My company pushed back. We are a subcontractor supplying commercial products and services under the T & M contract. The prime tells us that their contract requires that their travel doesn't exceed the JTR. However, it's my understanding that the JTR is only for military personnel. I suggested to my team that we agree to a clause that commits us to compliance with 31.205-46 which I interpret as requiring that we will use the govt regulations as guidelines but ultimately adhere to our company's internal travel policy which follows the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) guidelines and requires a Travel Exception Approval be submitted for any thing in excess of those per diem rates. My co-worker doesn't interpret 31.205-46 in the same manner and in fact insists that we should have requested 52.212-4 alt 1. I don't believe 52.212-4 to be appropriate as the prime contract is a FAR 15 procurement. I'm now doubting if we should even mention 31.205-46 since we offer commercial supplies and services, saying only that we would adhere to our company's travel guidelines.
  11. All, I have a CPFF contract for which my company did a voluntary cost share. The cost share portion of the contract covered primarily material and some subcontract services/supplies. Should there exist residual material on this contract that falls under the cost share (everything has been properly segregated is it handled as a typical CPFF? I.E. even though the material was funded by the cost-share portion of the contract does it belong to the government? Or would the material purchased under the cost share belong to the contractor? Is there any FAR support for this type of situation?
  12. My company produces a commercial item that it will supply to the DoD through its Prime Contractor as a first tier sub. As, we will make slight modifications to our item for the purposes of integration into the Prime's product for sale to the government, the Prime Contractor wants to negotiate rights to technical data, specifically asking for exclusivity "on behalf of the government" that we will not further market the item. I have asked the Prime if the government has specifically requested exclusivity. I didn't get a straight answer (a we want to protect the govts rights) but I assume as I did when the request was made that the answer is no. Prime confirmed that the modification is being funded under the USG contract and not by their own R&D. It seems to me that the push for exclusivity is coming from the Prime and not from the government. Either way I have a few questions: 1. If I'm understanding things correctly, we can grant to the government standard commercial rights under DFARS 252.227-7015 for our existing IP and government purpose rights under 252.227-7013. Is my assumption correct? 2. I believe that as the modification is minor, does not significantly alter the nongovernmental function or essential physical characteristic of the item or change the purpose of the process and therefore does not affect the commerciality of our product? 3. If commerciality is in tact can I assert -7015 rights for the entire product? (I don't think so. But if we can...) 4. We will grant the prime a limited use license for fulfillment of the requirements under the existing government contract. Any suggestions on language for this clause? 5. Are we required to assert data rights for our commercial IP? I'm not finding a requirement to do so but think it may be a good idea to eliminate confusion. Thoughts?
  13. My company submitted a proposal for an effort which included facilities capital cost of money. The resulting contract contains neither 52.215-17 or 52.215-16. We meet all of the criteria under 31.205-10(b and our COM calculations are compliant to the limitations in 31.205-52. However, our customer is now telling us that COM is not an allowable cost. Under what circumstances would this be the case? I'm assuming that the omission of 52.215-16 is of no bearing as it is a required clause for cost reimbursable supply contracts when applicable.
  14. CDRL Review Period and Approvals

    Thanks to all of you for your input. This helps significantly. I now know that I have legal/regulatory standing with regards to my position. Again, not my intent to push the customer unnecessarily on every data submittal, but to respond to the question presented by the COR who seemed to believe that I had no standing. It is also not my intent to "whine" about the situation without action. It is, however, my intent to come to an understanding based on the FAR/legal precedent where the customer is either responding or communicating delays to us related to the reviews.
×