Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Z-Mil

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. So when would a contractor or contracting officer be able to recognize the increased micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds? Does one have to await an update to the FAR which would not occur until October? I'm aware that the DoD issues a class deviation (2017-O0006) increasing the MPT for their procurements to $5k ($10k for basic research and STRL).
  2. Thank you Neil. It is what I thought. It's not that the OEM rejected the flowdown, but rather that we were unable to confirm that they have a system in place. We are going the extra step, having subcontractors that provide us with an EEE parts or assemblies with a certification that they have a compliant QMS that covers the requirements of DFAR 2352.246-7007. The OEM's initial response to us was no they do not.
  3. Yes. A prime is subcontracting with the OEM (compliant with 7008(b)(1)(i) and the OEM states they do not comply with 7007. 7008 states in (b)(3)(ii) the contractor shall notify the KO in writing, but that only applies to subcontractors other than the OEM. Therefore ther is no notification requirement if it is the OEM that fails to comply with the requirement of 7007. Is this correct?
  4. 252.246-7008, Sources of Electronic Parts (b)(3)(i) directs the contractor to (b)(3)(ii) if the contractor obtains an electronic part from (2) a subcontractor (other than the original manufacturer) that refuses to accept flowdown of this clause: What if it is the original manufacturer that is refusing the flowdown provisions of 252.246-7007? No action needed, and the contractor is able to procure the item from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Kind of an odd scenario, but the provision seems overlook the OEM as an potential entry point for counterfeit parts. Love to hear your thoughts.
  5. Thanks Retreadfed! I was interpreting 13.201(d) to also exclude the contractors responsibility to flowdown subcontract provisions as well for their subcontracts that are below the MPT. This logic was predicated on the second sentence in the section which states; it takes precedence over any other FAR requirement to the contrary (which includes FAR part 52).
  6. I was informed by the DMCA that the contractor is required to flow down 52.245-1 Goverment Property to all subcontractors (based off 52.245-1 (b)(3)). I attempted to argue that since the orders were below the MPT there should be no requirement to flowdown the provision (based on FAR 13.201 (d)) FAR 13.201 (d) Micro-purchases do not require provisions or clauses, except as provided at 13.202 and 32.1110. This paragraph takes precedence over any other FAR requirement to the contrary, but does not prohibit the use of any clause. However, I was unsuccessful in making my argument. I also see that other prime contractors also flow down 52.245-1 along with a host of other subcontract provisions in there general terms below the MPT. What is the logic requiring the inclusion of this provision specifically? The other argument I attempted to make was that the Government property received (for repair) had a unit cost well below the simplified acquisition threshold and therefore should be exempt from the provision based on FAR 45.107 (d) (d) Purchase orders for property repair need not include a Government property clause when the unit acquisition cost of Government property to be repaired does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, unless other Government property (not for repair) is provided. Note: No other property was provided. Please provide your thoughts on my reasoning.