Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California/Nationwide
  • Interests
    Travel. Providing comments and references for educational purposes. No legal advice is given or intended.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,286 profile views
  1. It sounds like the prime is confusing what it is required to do to be bid compliant with its cost disclosures vs. what the solicitation requires for subcontractors. Sounds like it copied and pasted its requirements and imposed them on subcontractors. That would be over reaching unless it was required to be done by the government solicitation and if so, that might also be over reaching by the Government. For example, if the prime was required to comply with current cost or pricing data because its proposal was over $2M (and not an exception), it would be over reaching for the prime to required current cost or pricing data for subcontracts under $2M. Does this Section L indicate that subcontractors are required to comply with Section L? Is Section L the required cost and pricing details model/tab? Is your proposal over the threshold dollar amount for current cost or pricing data? A subcontractor directly contacting the Government is a good way to create friction with the prime. In any event, I would hope the CO response is that you should discuss it with the prime. What does "it is up to the prime to ask the CO the right way" mean to you? The right way to do what? The prime does not need to ask the CO "the right way." The prime is required to comply with its own procedures relative to subcontractors and obtaining proposals from subcontractors to comply with prime contract requirements.
  2. My opinion is that the better practice would be for the requisition to be generated at a time after the option is exercised by the Government: 1. System wise, it could currently look like there is an open commitment to purchase and the purchasing function is not doing its job, which also may cause an inaccurate financial picture for your company. 2. There may be changes in the option along the way. I question whether your company's system would be triggered to "approve the option changes" with another requisition. 3. It seems commitment awkward for finance to "have to remember" to go back into the system and authorize funding commitment for an "old" requisition...those activities should to me be triggered by a requisition that goes to its queue and is taken care of at that time. I believe you are doing a good thing questioning the current process and commend you for your thinking.
  3. Nice ending for your company. However, maybe not so nice for potential bidders who thought it meant what it said and therefore did not bid?
  4. It sounds like no prime proprietary information was provided to your company in development of the part number and you are certain that no such information is used by your company in any manner and is not required to use or enable the part number. I would feel better if I consulted an intellectual property attorney about your company's potential as a merchant supplier, since it sounds like a first for your company?? It bothers me that your management calls new products the prime's product. Maybe they know something more than you know. The world of intellectual property rights and obligations included in government contracts and subcontracts is challenging to understand.
  5. The CPSR Guidebook indicates that subsidiaries are each separately subject to regulations. See https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_062719.pdf Page 122
  6. Does this help? https://www.acquisition.gov/content/421204-applicability-novation-agreements
  7. Having difficulty understanding what company you work for, what company is furnishing the services and your company's relationship to that company. Do you work for the prime contractor, a 1st level subcontractor or a 2nd level subcontractor (the 2nd level would have a contract with the 1st level). Also, not well understood to me are the terms of the contract in question regarding the services. You seem to indicate that there is a purchase order but not a subcontract. That terminology is not that important. What is important is the statement of work and the terms and conditions of the document between 2 parties that might be relevant to the situation you are describing. Also, could you please clarify how a COR can assign non-government employees to a position "with the Prime contractor" and what tasks those individuals are asked to perform. thanks.
  8. (i) The Government reserves the right to review the Contractor’s purchasing system as set forth in FAR Subpart 44.3. There are substantial business consequences. Chief among them are inability to successfully compete against others for awards such as those having significant subcontracting or risk. An approved Purchasing System is the gold standard and valued by Agencies and Contracting Officers. When it is required, it may be called out in the solicitation. Also, it is a significant schedule risk to have procurements reviewed before award if required by CPSR deficiencies.
  9. Contractors are subject to CPSRs contractually when the prime contract includes FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts
  10. What does the Key Personnel clause in the contract require or permit be done?
  11. A CPSR compliant company process would not permit a subcontract to be released without a SOW and lack of flowdowns, at least those that are mandatory and included in the prime. Fixed price subcontracts do not need funding as it is considered fully funded unless otherwise indicated with partial funding. But, not quite sure how such a subcontract would be administered or clear enough without contract language addressing how this works with labor hours and rates, and the subcontract had a total price. It seems possible to me to have an LH subcontract with "Work Orders," depending on how the whole scheme is explained in the contract. It sounds like procurement is in a weak position at this firm. You haven't indicated what was required by its Procurement Policies and Procedures, so you can address changes with this example.
  12. Thanks for the info, Gonzo. If your firm handles cooperative agreements or grants, though, I expect that FAR 52.244-2 would not be included because FAR indicates such transactions are not contracts.
  13. Gonzo, the Government right to conduct a CPSR review requires that FAR 52.244-2 be included in the USAID prime. I am not familiar with USAID contracts and Agency contract clauses. Do they usually include FAR 52.244-2? Thanks for the info.
  14. Yes, Retreadfed, but I got the impression from the poster's responses that the posted question is outside of FAR 52.249-14.
  • Create New...