Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Zidane

Members
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Zidane

  • Rank
    Copper Member
  1. Hello. I work for a small business and we are considering responding to a large dollar-value RFP as a Prime Contractor. The RFP has the clause 52.215-23 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges (OCT 2009). My reading of this clause is that we would still be complaint if we subcontracted more than 70% of the work as long as we added value, by doing things like "processing orders of parts or services, maintaining inventory, reducing delivery lead times, managing multiple sources for contract requirements, coordinating deliveries, performing quality assurance functions". In other's opinions, is my interpretation correct? In addition to the above question, the clause uses Alternate I. Does this mean that if we include our proposed subcontractors, which in total will exceed 70% of the contract value, in our proposal and we are awarded the prime contract, that the Contracting Officer has determined that the subcontracting costs are not a pass through? I realize that is what it says but that seems too easy and to conflict with the government's Small Business initiatives.
  2. Thanks all for the feedback. I didn't think a sub had to have a CAGE code. However, the uncertainty came from the fact that my former employer, who was a LARGE DoD contractor, always required it, so I thought that perhaps I was missing something as surely such a large DoD contractor would be knowledgeable about these things.
  3. The contract contains 52.244-2 Subcontracts and clause 252.244-7001 Contract Purchasing System Administration. Neither clause specifically mentions a requirement for a subcontractor to have a cage code, so I am inclined to say it is not required but I know my former employer (also a DoD prime contractor) required all subs to have a CAGE code as a matter of policy. I am trying to determine if I will be out of compliance if the SME /consultant does not have a CAGE code and sam.gov entry.
  4. HI. I work for a small DoD prime contractor. We would like to hire an individual subject matter expert (not a company) to do some work on our contract. I am trying to determine if he absolutely has to have a CAGE code and be set up in SAM in order for me to subcontract with him (after approval of the Request for Consent, etc). I am finding conflicting information. The DAU Ask the Professor says "no" but I realize they are not always accurate over there. Anything definitive would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
  5. www.farsite.hill.af.mil

    Thanks, all. I didn't realize it was an issue of them blocking non-.mil. I emailed the webmaster. Hopefully it will be accessible again soon. In meanwhile, I find acquisition.gov to be an OK substitute. Zidane
  6. Hello, I use the Farsite website almost everyday. It has been down all week. I have called the help desk at the base and everywhere else I can think of to find out what is going on with it. Can anyone advise what is another very reliable, intuitive to use, current website for the FARS and DFARS clauses? Many government websites have out-of-date info regarding the FAR and DFARS or are not easy to use. For example, this website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/ has a search box, but when I type in 252.204-7015 the site cannot find the clause. This is the first time this clause has been in one of our Prime Contracts. Any suggestions would be appreciated!
×