Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Fara Fasat

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Fara Fasat

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

7,002 profile views
  1. I've attached my latest list, in case it helps identify where it came from. I also see that some were approved by individual agencies (Army, AF), but most were by DLA or USDAT&L. Approved DNADs.docx
  2. Any forum members from DCMA or DLA? The list must be out there somewhere.
  3. Does anyone know where there is a list of current DNADs for the Berry Amendment? I downloaded one a few years ago that was current up to 2013, but need to update it. Unfortunately I cannot find one anywhere -- DCMA, DLA, DoD Acquisition and Sustainment, etc.
  4. OK, here's what I found: 52.212-5 was originally proposed in 60 FR 11198; March 1, 1995 and 60 FR 15220; March 22, 1995. However, the earlier version omitted the audit provisions for some contracts. To remedy this, a correction was issued (60 FR 17184, April 4, 1995) that added subparagraph (d). That's it -- no explanation for the use of the word "transaction" or how it differs from "all records" in the Part 15 clause. Unless someone has actual experience they can relate (i.e., 'we objected to their document request because it was not related to a transaction'), then I guess we can go no further. If I were faced with a broad request for records, I would borrow from the accounting definitions and argue that it is limited to documents relating to sales, purchases, and similar transactions. Anything else (internal costs, labor rates, etc) is not a 'transaction.'
  5. Slight correction to your post Neil: we're not saying that transactions are excluded from anything. Transactions are in both clauses. 215-2 talks about all records and transactions, whereas 212 only talks about transactions. We're trying to find out what the difference is, and if there is anything in "all records" that would not be a "transaction. That would shed a light on what could be excluded from an audit in a commercial item contract.
  6. I read Lilly, and it only addresses the scope of the "records directly pertinent ...", not the difference between all records and transactions. I would argue that the "directly pertinent" discussion would apply to transactions as well, but it still doesn't help on the difference. There doesn't seem to be much else out there, so I'll try to trace back in the federal register to when 212-5 was first added to see if there was an explanation, or any public comments on it.
  7. It's "records involving transactions," so I see the limiting term as "transaction." If it wasn't something different, why not just say "all records" like Part 15 does?
  8. No problem. I was trying to keep it succinct. Let me try this: the Part 15 clause has (b), (c), and (d), whereas the Part 12 clause only has (d). So what are the "all records" covered by the Part 15 clause, that are more than the "transactions" in both clauses? What's the difference, especially since the government only has the right to examine "transactions" under Part 12?
  9. Here 2 help: I think you're missing paragraphs (b) and (c) in 215-2. You compared paragraphs (d) in both 215-2 and 212-5, and of course found them to be very similar. I'm interested in what is covered by (b) and (c) of 215-2, which talk about "all records." It sounds like "transactions" are a subset of "all records," especially since 215 talks about all records and transactions, whereas 212 only talks about transactions. I know that the FAR can be inconsistent, and even sloppy, in its use of terms. But sometimes terms have a precise meaning. Which is it here? While this is not an active issue right now, I do have internal customers who want to know the risks of dealing with the government, and one of the things they always bring up is audit rights. It would be useful to be able to explain exactly what could be audited in a commercial item contract.
  10. Somewhat useful, but I'm looking for more. Not a current issue, just trying to understand. Specifically, what can the government not see under the Part 12 audit clause (transactions) that it can see under the Part 15 audit clause (all records)?
  11. The Part 15 audit clause (52.215-2) has extensive audit rights if the contract is cost-reimbursement, or if certified cost or pricing data was submitted. It also has at (d): "The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of the Comptroller General, shall have access to and right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract." The Part 12 audit clause (52.212-5(d)) only has the language concerning Comptroller General access to records involving transactions. Does anyone have experience with an audit under Part 12, and specifically what a "transaction" is? There is no separate definition of a transaction in the FAR, although the word is used extensively.
  12. I go to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) | Acquisition.GOV to download the complete FAR and various agency supplements. Today I went there to get updated versions, and the complete FAR is still there in pdf, word, and html versions. But unless I'm looking in the wrong place, the supplements are only available in individual sections. I can't find a link to download, for example, the entire DFARS, or AFARS, etc. I really don't want to download 52 individual parts for each agency that I work with. Am I looking in the wrong place? Did I miss something?
  13. No dribbling. It's a hypothetical that I added to because we had a split on whether a TO had to be awarded to only a division, or to any division on the corporation. It's a discussion forum after all.
  14. The work it would take would meet the definition of a commercial item and is exempt from CAS.
  15. OK, this got interesting. Now here is a practical example of how it could make a difference. Same as before -- IDIQ contract. MNO gets an award. Now a TO comes along that is a CAS-covered TO. Division MNO is not compliant and does not have a disclosure statement. Division QRS does, so it wants to submit a proposal for the TO, and will sub some of the work to MNO. And yes, between the two of them, they can do all the work in the TO. Assume Retreadfed's case -- that the contractor is the corporation. Can they do this, or can the government refuse to accept the proposal?
×
×
  • Create New...