Jump to content

jlbiad

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I'm reasonably certain that all Schedules have 52.222-37 in at the contract level.
  2. Yes, I've seen it, recommended KOs use it, and seen GSA recommend it. http://blogs.gsa.gov/blogs/servicesorderin...ile/not-tie.pdf
  3. The GSA KO makes a determination that Schedule pricing is fair and reasonable.
  4. You will have to submit a new CSP, and then based on that CSP submittal, GSA will likely want to renegotiate your rate. Who is your basis of award? GSA will push for most-favored-customer pricing, and you will have to make an argument as to why they are not entitled to it.
  5. Are you paying cash for the H&W? It's almost certainly more expensive than implementing a bona fide fringe benefit plan.
  6. No, you're correct in that in a CTA both (all) companies have privity of contract with the government. One company, however, can be designated the lead and handle all invoicing and receipt of payment, among other things, on behalf of the other team members. Each team member must still report its respective sale on its own contract and pay the IFF accordingly. The lead is an administrative convenience for the government.
  7. It's fairly common in teaming arrangements for one company to be designated the "lead," and handle all invoicing and payment. To play devil's advocate, why can't one company decide to outsource GSA orders to another company? Where is the contractual requirement for disclosure of such?
  8. You're right. What's happening is is C1 is using C2's schedule (with its permission) to provide a product or service not on C1's schedule. C1 would designate itself the lead and handle ordering, delivery, etc., but source the product itself, rather than from C2.
  9. Maybe I'm confused here, but to me C2 would be insane to enter into this agreement. The contract for those C2 items would be between the government and C2, in accordance with the terms and conditions of C2's K. Heartburn, thinking of the risk to C2 should C1 not make delivery at all/on time, not support the product in accordance with C2's terms, etc. I'm fairly certain the IG wouldn't like this arrangement, and is it could be used to circumvent the Price Reductions Clause.
×
×
  • Create New...