Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Z-Mil

Members
  • Content count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Z-Mil

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
×