br549

Thanks Retread. Sounds reasonable. I'll think on it. Ed

Retredfed. Yes, they both contain 52.222-41 Vern. Please explain "take effect under the law" as used in your post.

Related issue. Adjusting FP, T&M, LH Subcontracts under Cost-Reimbursement Prime Contract Situation: Long-term cost-reimbursement prime contract for major Government program is subject to SCA. Several long-term FP, TM, or LH subcontracts, also subject to SCA, are awarded by the prime contract. Neither the prime nor the subcontracts contain FAR 52,222-43 or any other instructions for adjusting the subcontracts. The prime contractor is left to determine procedures for adjusting the subcontracts. Prime decides to require subs to make new Wage Determinations effective on the date of issuance of the WD, rather than on the anniversary date of the multiple year contract, or at the beginning of a renewal, as contemplated by 52.222-43. Because the rates in the WD are applied over a longer period, prime contractor's costs are increased. . Comments?

The accounting system for a T&M commercial contract must be adeqate to comply with the terms and conditions of the T&M commercial contract.

Your inclination seems right. But, apparently you are requesting some sort of cost/price info from prospective suppliers.Why? If the "BOA" you're issuing is a BOA as described in FAR 16.7, the cost/price is not set till an order is issued - you will have no firm cost/price info to analyze until an order is issued. But prime contractors sometimes issue subcontract documents called BOAs that are not the same as BOAs described in FAR. So look at your situation. Is there any reason to set cost/price in the the BOA itself? Will the BOA become a contract at the time it is issued?

See what NASA does at NASA FAR Supplement 852.270 and 1852.242-70. Also NASA Form 1632

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

One can find subcontract terms and conditions used by various government prime contractors on their web sites - including how they handle FAR flowdowns.

OOPs, here's a better site. http://www.governmentcontractslawblog.com/...o-subcontracts/

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article...email_access=on

Back in the mid eighties, we procured a memorial monument (you would all know of it). We basically followed the A&E selection process. We requested proposed designs and had a selection board, etc. It was funded with non-apropriated funds, so we didn't have to contend with FAR.

Interesting. I tend to agree with H2H . But, but, but?. The CAS regulations don?t provide for the prime to choose not to claim exemption, nor do they give the CO a choice in the matter. The CO is required to insert the proper clause (for full or modified CAS ) unless the contract is exempt (FAR 30.201-4 et seq). In this case the contract apparently was exempt. Did the prime fully and truthfully complete the CAS certifications (52.230-1)? Is the CAS clause really in the prime contract, or is it there by mistake?

If your contract is truly firm-fixed price, the Government doesn't care what it costs you to perform the contact. All the cost risk is yours - including your cost of subcontracts. The Government has no right to audit or review you books under a true FFP contract. Further, there is no requirement for contracting officer consent to subcontracts, because the Subcontracts clause FAR 52.244-2 is not required in a firm-fixed price contract [see 44.204(a)(1)]. And the Competition in Contracting clause may not be required. [see 44.204©].

Be careful! "Bimonthly" is ambiguous. It can mean every two months or twice per month.

Thanks H2H, Your response must be correct - no WoV - yet