garth

My understanding is there are different types of IDIQ contracts. A requirements contract would require no miminium order, as the the buyers consideration is the promise to buy all future requirements - for a specified period - from the seller. An indefinite delivery contract has no such condition so a minimum buy obligation is required to form a contract. If it is not feasible to negotiate the pricing arrangement then I think a BOA setting out the terms would be about all one could accomplish. When you receive the prime contract you could negotiate the price and issue a subcontract.

Thanks Vern. I will try to find that reference and read through it; trust it is on point. And my apologies, I was assuming your thoughts were informed by some analysis.

Vern, Could you help with case citations to support your analysis?

This seemed noteworthy ... I would be interested in other folks thoughts. http://www.mckennalong.com/publications-advisories-3194.html

I choose rafieldjr content and style.

Neither one of us is getting paid are we.

I don't think the question is wheather the the prime contractor has the requirment to obtain certified cost or pricing data. I think question is if the subcontractor will only provide that data to the Government - as is the policy of many large contractors now days - and the prime contractor is not able to obtain timely support from DCAA or DCMA to review the data and provide a summary report to the prime contractor - which prime contractors have historically relied on - what are the options of the prime contractor It is a real time issure for a prime contractors.

The argument is not specific any particular requirment in the FAR. The argument is if the legal status of the regulations makes them binding on persons, including Government contractors and subcontractors, regardless of contractual agreement. The argument is that the FAR impliments many statutes (e.g., TINA, CICA, FARA, FASA, WSARA) over and above the statute providing their origianl authority. If there is sufficient nexus in regulations to the statutes they have the full force and effect of law. To that point i still content the cases are relevent. It seems Nash & Cibinic interpret Ch

I offer these two cases ... CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, 843*843 as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court

For sure that part! But I think the others as well.

After further analysis I think my original post is valid. If the FAR places a requirement on a contractor or subcontractor then, even absent any contractual language, it should be given deference as having the full force and affect as law. I think the argument that there is not sufficient statutory basis to allow the FAR to place requirements on contractors lacks support.

DCAA Audit Guidence Memo, dated 11/15/10, titled "Audit Guidence on Audit Procedures Related to Long Term Agreements (LTA)" might be helpful.

Can you share the clause? Typically the USG and prime contractors only request a license - not ownership.

gjhall23, We are having similar challenges. I think DCAA and DCMA are working through their respective rolls. Sometimes getting the PCO -who has cognizance over the prime the sub is being place under - involved helps. They tend have an interest in closure.