Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Fara Fasat

Members
  • Posts

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

7,863 profile views
  1. So after all that, this is not a 'limitation on subcontracting' question. It is an evaluation question and whether [Apple] can use the past performance of its proposed sub. Back to square 1.
  2. Are you talking about 52.219-14? If so, the prescription says that it goes in contracts if any portion is to be set aside for small businesses, i.e., not in a fully unrestricted solicitation. The clause then says that it does not apply to the unrestricted portion of a partial set-aside. In either case the limitations would not apply to a large prime. Are you saying they would? The intent of the rule is to prevent a small business from being used as a front to win a set-aside contract, and then subbing most of the work to a large. When would those limitations apply to a large winning an unrestricted competition, or the unrestricted portion of a contract?
  3. So -- unrestricted solicitation. The answer to Patrick is no limitation on subcontracting, no 51% or any other rule, Apple can structure its team any way it wants. Whatever he has heard about primes being required to do at least 51% of the work only applies to small business set-asides.
  4. Don't we need to know if this is a set-aside contract, or are we simply assuming that even though it wasn't stated? The 51% rule (or any limitation on subcontracting rule) is for set-asides, not unrestricted solicitations.
  5. OK, but expressing the findings as 4 years instead of 1 week certainly makes it sound more dire, doesn't it? That's why I'm always skeptical when I see numbers in the news. If I see a percent, that tells me the actual numbers are low; if I see raw numbers, that tells me the percent is low. They choose whatever will have the bigger impact on the viewer, i.e., a 50% increase sounds far worse than going from 2 to 3. Likewise a 100,000 increase sounds much worse than going from 55.5% to 55.8%.
  6. Genuinely curious about something. The actual time saved is 8 hours (not sure how that results in a 1-week award delay). Just because you multiply it by 200 doesn't mean that anything was delayed by 4 years, or that you can recover 4 years of something if this is implemented. Each project was delayed by 8 hours (or maybe 1 week). Implementing these recommendations would result in a project starting 8 hours (or maybe 1 week) earlier. Sure, 4 years looks impressive, but on an individual project basis, the delay doesn't look that bad. I've had longer delays than that just trying to find the next meeting slot when all parties were available.
  7. I hadn't noticed this until your question made me look closer, but -- 252.215-7010 is a provision. A provision is defined as: "Solicitation provision or provision means a term or condition used only in solicitations and applying only before contract award." Provisions don't go in contracts, so why is there even a flowdown requirement? Take away the flowdown and there's no longer a rabbit hole to go down. This whole thing is a mess so I'm not going to waste any more time on it. The DAR council said that the authority was not extended to prime contractors, and that's been good enough for the others on this thread, and it's good enough for me.
  8. What's old is new again. Looks like there was a similar discussion in 2019. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/5399-subcontracts-requirements-for-nontraditional-defense-contractors-ntdc-exception-from-certified-cost-or-pricing-data/
  9. Thanks Don. I remember reading that several months ago but had forgotten about it when responding to this thread. We had looked into it when this question came up in my company. Our conclusion was that it was for primes only. We were looking to take advantage of it, but decided we couldn't. For WifWaf: read DFARS 212.102(a)(iii). "contracting officers ... (A) ... may treat supplies and services provided by nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items." "The decision to apply commercial item procedures ... does not require a commercial item determination and does not mean the item is commercial." Why the inclusion of (b)(1)(ii)(E) in the flowdown of 252.215-7010? Well, it wouldn't be the first inconsistency we've seen in the FAR and DFARS. If DoD intended primes to have that authority, I expect they would have done it with a specific statement, not indirectly through the flowdown of a prime contract clause. For example, 244.402 specifically states that primes are responsible for making commercial item determinations for subcontracts. There is no equivalent statement allowing primes to treat products from a nontraditional subcontractor as commercial items.
  10. That section of the DFARS just says that the items can be treated as commercial items. It doesn't say they are commercial items. Furthermore, the authority is only granted to the head of an agency and then the contracting officer. There is no clause or anything else that tells a prime it can provide the same treatment to subs. DFARS 212.102 only talks about the contracting officer. If this authority were to be passed on to primes, I would expect there to be a clause doing so. My statement is fairly limited -- I'm saying that a nontraditional contractor can only use that status in a prime contract with DoD. If it is a subcontractor, and the prime contract is not commercial, then the sub will have to establish the commerciality of its products.
  11. Just to clarify - the designation as a nontraditional contractor is only available on prime contracts with the government. The authorizing statue says that the head of an agency may authorize the treatment of products or services as commercial if coming from nontraditional contractors. Furthermore, the acquisition gets treated as a commercial item acquisition; the products or services themselves do not become commercial. This benefits subs because the prime's contract will only have commercial item clauses in it, so only these will flow down to a sub. But if the prime has a non-commercial item contract, and a sub meets the definition of a nontraditional contractor, the sub must nevertheless establish that its product is commercial if it wants the benefits of a commercial item subcontract. There is no authority for a prime to treat a subcontract as commercial just because it comes from a nontraditional contractor.
  12. Just to be clear, I'm not job hunting. My offer of a version with deviations was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Still ... 🤷‍♂️
  13. Good if you're looking for a searchable database of deviations; not so good if you'd like to see the clauses where they belong. In my opinion, NASA got a good start by providing a link to the applicable deviations at the front of each subpart's clauses. Even better would be having the deviation clauses inserted where applicable. For a bonus, do something similar to the 'track changes' function in MS Word, like strike through the inapplicable clause and highlight the deviation clause. If the price is right ... 😉 Just curious - does the contract writing software that DoD uses automatically insert the deviation clause?
  14. Don also said that "DoD shouldn't be surprised when their contracting officers aren't compliant with their class deviations." It wouldn't be "the DFARS." It would be a version (and I have consistently said "version") with the correct clauses in it. Did you ever complain about the version that Farsite posted, because it wasn't the real "DFARS" and didn't go through notice and comment? If you don't like "version", what word would you use? I'll be glad to use it. It wouldn't be the real, CFR DFARS, and everyone here knows that, so I'll call it whatever you want. No matter what it's called, I bet there are many who would be glad to see it and use it. Oh, and the version of the NFS that NASA puts on its website includes references to its deviations, in red, at the beginning of the clauses for each subpart. In their list of deviations at https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/pcd.pdf, they include a link to this version and even call it the official NFS. Apparently NASA thinks it is useful to post their NFS with deviations. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/NFS.pdf
  15. Vern - wonder no more. For the record I have contributed. I just don't need to enumerate what or how here. My statements on this forum aren't any more or less valid based on my professional contributions. Dsmith - I was in the 101st too, although longer ago than I care to admit. And since I'm not in the government, there's not much I can do about change. By the way, I could put together a DoD-accurate version of the DFARS, with the currently-applicable clauses and their prescriptions in the right places. For a price.
×
×
  • Create New...