general_correspondence

I think it is simply saying they are going to rank a large contract of a JV partner, higher than 3 little ones. They consider that "more complex" than having small stand alone contracts. I frankly could argue the opposite - having several smaller contracts that are performed under substantially different scopes of work, different price schedules, billing, accounting, administration, etc..and performing well, would have high merit also. "volume" does not always define "complexity"

Tax obligation language in a contractors employee agreements are somewhat frightening so much so real fears of detainment or imprisonment could ocurr to a contractor in a host nation. Is this legal, or ethical for govenment to allow, if they knew? Its possible under a FFP labor CLIN, the contractor bid in a manner where any new hires on the program would be required to be responsible for host nation taxes, but the government may not necessarily know this, and if the government was aware, it seems they (U.S. Govt.) may be the target of the host nation government to come after if the host nation believes the contractor did not remit all taxes they believed were due to them. Working in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, is tough enough, but if a contractor requires their employees to be liable for some unknown amounts and sums of money, with no regulatory to it, shouldn't the government be aware, and not allow that?

yes

Joel KMY wanted to know if the trade-off determination meets the threshold to determine price of the successful offeror is fair and reasonable based on competition? The answer is NO, with respect to price reasonableness. KMY was mixing apples/oranges, Napolik made the assist on the case law on not dollarizing tradeoffs, which is again, mixing things up a little because "selection justification" is not the same thing as making a determination on price reasonableness.

Yes, the labor was within prime and sub scope of contract. Thanks for the reply, I am looking into the specific circumstances that can lead us (the prime) to the table for the equitable change becasue I'm sure if the customer did not directly authorize the increase, they were certainly aware and did nothing to stop it.

the man hours and type of labor required for performance was estimated with a degree of certainty, however we had a sub add about 50% additional labor. It was an established labor category, but according to his subcontract he was required to advise the prime's subcontract administrator immediately for IN SCOPE directed changes by the prime's technical POC, and to get the prime's written change order to any OUT OF SCOPE work from the prime's Subcontract administrator before starting new work. Is it in scope or out of scope work? probably in scope, but I'm not sure since the percentage change was high. over 4 months went by before the primes' subcontract administrator learned people were added and being billed. According to the sub - the primes' customer directed them, not necessarily the prime itself, but of course all that conjecture is meaningless at this point. Because the client is receiving and benefiting to what now appears to be the real required level for performance, can we (the prime) go back to the client requesting equitable adjustment ? Before someone answers "yeh, you can always ask" - I want to know if there is a winnable argument......somewhere in here.....

thanks Vern, got it now !

KMY, probable costs were developed - so the elements of the non selected proposals that can be used to determine price reasonableness are good for you but you would probably need to quantify each trade off and still do a price analysis.

Vern Thank you. I will need to get with our Contract Dept. to see if we have had MOD's to our prime and if any exceeded 700,000. But according to your last paragraph, it would not matter if we received a MOD or not - I believe I have a commercial item (service) exemption awarding the subcontract. Do you think I can go the commercial item (service) route, and if so, does the determination of commercial item need to come from Sub, or can I make the assertion for the file?

We were awarded a prime contract from DoS for non-commercial services 52.215-10, and 52.215-12 are not in the prime contract however 52.215-13 is. our subcontracts issued under the prime are arguable commercial services (ie.. airport screening technician labor, food services, etc..) In our consent packages to subcontract, we are justifying that due to 52.215-10, and 52.215-12 were not in the Prime, certified cost and pricing data was not obtained. is this justification adequate, or do we need to go a different route, ie. assert these are commercial services, and therefore CC&PD not obtained?

Book: 10 Little Indians (Agatha C.) Song: Baba Oriely (The WHO) Movie: GodFather Part II Poet: e.e.Cummings Car: 1968 Cutlass Supreme

10 Little Indians (Agatha C.) Baba Oriely (The WHO) GodFather Part II

Is your concern getting back on the list, or is your issue not receiving RFQ/RFP for task orders from the agency from 2 years ago?

H2H I agree, only want to clarify that the USG has no 'approval" or guidance for contractors and subs, when it comes to determination of these systems, its only determining if adequate at the auidt. The only guidance is contained in the regs. The who, how, aspect of meeting GAAC, or CAS, standards is a diligent effort by the Prime.

If the question is how to go about determining if a subcontractor's accounting system can hold up to DCAA or government audits their are firms that specialize in this. I used a good one out of Denver 7 years ago, and it takes time and money but you gotta do what you gotta do. Simply hire a firm that has past work and experience with USG accounting system requirements, that will charge you and the sub a Fee until all the segregation and minimal standards are met to meet and withstand an audit. you gotta pay to play. The Firm you hire should provide a detailed proposal on how they will construct and manage the process and data so that you and the sub(s) are at compliance standards. Negotiating with the Subs that they need to pay to get an accounting system in place - is another thing.

my thoughts were, fire, theft, general liability, property insurance may be in question due to operating from the company premises? the suppliers address is same as company's address will raise DCAA and audit questions. the principal place of business is legally in another city Calculation of supplier's OH rate and indirect rates, is it off site, or onsite? any other thoughts?

Subcontractor is set up in our systems with contracting office located on our own property. We have run into ISO and quality cert issues that were not associated with the building number they operate from, and I forsee other issues but interested to hear from others what they think the contractual issues are with this type arrangement.

How did the government respond to them being in your proposal? Is the LAB "approved" and a named sub in your contract with NIH? The LAB will probably require the use of a Work for Others agreement when you go to contract with them. Your biggest challenge will probably determining price reasonableness, the LABS will be twice the price of private industry

I have been through 3 CPSR's. Typically the government team is going to review and determine if your procurement policies line up with government requirements and FAR. They will examine, in some detail, if you are following your procedures that reinforce policy. I am not sure why your line of thinking is "with a contractor's contractual obligations" because that could entail much more than subcontracting and procurement. By the way, I agree with Cajun's remarks.

page 3 of this report, read footnote Number 2. The key word is "mostly". Why was the word "mostly" used by GAO? http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/contracts/cld/papers/GAO1-125.pdf

Former, fair and reasonable prices is not same as a commercial item? Please explain.

Vern, what is your proof that an item on GSA schedule is a commercial items?

Yes we are a Prime. We hold a letter from the CO allowing purchases off of GSA schedules. The subcontract is not over $700,000 however our customer is requiring us to make commerciality determinations at all dollar levels. We as the Prime, now have the conundrum of accepting valid, invalid, assertations from these suppliers, who may or may not care a whole lot about this paper work. The conundrum in my mind, not only for this specific procurement - is the aggregate of a lot of "roll up" subcontracts and suppliers, if we simply pass through the assertations of commerciality. On this procurement however, the software appears by nomenclature alone - to be strictly military. As we all know, a seller can "package" a product with military nomenclature, but when you peel the onion, you can see it can also be used in commercial applications. Herein lies the rub...we ask for sales data from these suppliers, usually in the form of redacted invoices to build a case for commerciality, but none of them are complying with this request. I personally do not see the issue with providing a redacted invoice, in fact, if I were a supplier, I would gladly do this in case of liability issues later on. I do not think the FAR unequivocally states that by offering a item or service on GSA makes it a commercial item. In fact, what I have been researching I find it strongly can be argued, but never flat out confirms it to be so.

Heretalearn would it matter? if offered on what most experts herein are saying that GSA itmes are indeed commercial items, if ordered from the schedule or not is irrelevant.

FormerFed You referenced FAR 8.402. more text of 8.402 states "Additionally, the Department of Defense (DoD) manages similar systems of schedule-type contracting for military items; however, DoD systems are not covered by this subpart" what does this mean ?