Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

StePa

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About StePa

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @jayandstacey @Loul Thanks for your feedback/suggestions.
  2. @Retreadfed @here_2_help Thanks. I had assumed this as well but they all mentioned they had some presentation by a law firm years ago which included something about it. Of course, the presentation and slides are no where to be found and my senior leadership can't recall which firm gave that presentation. Thanks again everyone for your input.
  3. @Neil Roberts Hi Neil. You are correct that the prime does not have to advise us whether they accept or approve the CI assertion but they must clearly determinate whether our item meets the definition of a commercial item which the Prime in this situation believes they cannot or will not. I guess I am a bit confused on this section you wrote. "Prior commercial item determinations by prime contractors are not required to be recognized on subsequent buys." Are you saying the prior determinations do not have to be recognized by the USG or the prime? I am aware the USG does not have to recognize any CID made by the prime but I believed there was some clause which stated that once a Prime expressly makes a determination that an item meets the definition of a commercial item and the price is fair and reasonable, a prime cannot request more information on the matter. I am obviously new to this and am not sure. I am actually trying to research what the exact clause is but our senior leadership mentioned it..so here I am searching endlessly for it. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
  4. @Vern Edwards I think that part of the decision was made in the situation I posted in my response to Neil. Quoted from my response to Neil: "I have been with this company less than year, but from what I can gather, the history we have with Primes is as follows: 1. Prime requests CIJ. 2. We submit CIJ. 3. Prime never responds whether they accept the CIJ or approve of it as per DFAR 244.402. 4. 1-3 years later, Prime again requests CIJ for the same part number. This point seems to be the main issue that annoys my senior leadership. They don't wish providing additional information since we never receive any official response to the information submitted. I believe that history with some of these Primes are dictating our stance with them currently. " I personally do not see what would be the issue for my company beyond our company not wanting to waste additional manpower, resources compiling the information for parts we have already submitted CIJ in past years. 90% of inquiries are for parts we already provided CIJ and never received responses for.
  5. HI @Vern Edwards, If it is a prospective customer, we have no problems providing the information from the RFQ to the time the quote is open. We have issues providing the information once the purchase order is placed or getting requests for information for: 1. quotes no longer valid (last quote issued in 2016) 2. purchase order was placed and part has already shipped. Sorry if this was unclear.
  6. @Neil Roberts HI Neil. My company does not have an issue with provide CIJ when we have quote open (which asserts commerciality on the parts quoted) with the Prime and before an order is placed. We provide all of this information at no cost to the Prime. Our issue is when requests come in months/years (this is actually quite common) after the purchase order has been placed and parts shipped out. I have been with this company less than year, but from what I can gather, the history we have with Primes is as follows: 1. Prime requests CIJ. 2. We submit CIJ. 3. Prime never responds whether they accept the CIJ or approve of it as per DFAR 244.402. 4. 1-3 years later, Prime again requests CIJ for the same part number. This point seems to be the main issue that annoys my senior leadership. They don't wish providing additional information since we never receive any official response to the information submitted. I believe that history with some of these Primes are dictating our stance with them currently. Hopefully this clears it up. From the information I've been receiving through correspondence with the DCMA, our position seems to be acceptable. Once a PO is in hand, there is nothing a sub is required to provide but..the DCMA did express that they hope if the USG is requesting the info, the sub and prime can work together to provide all information. My senior leadership mentioned that once a prime approves the CIJ per DFAR 244.402, another FAR or DFARs clause prevents the prime from requesting further information. Is this assertion correct? I assume this may be a reason why Primes do not expressly accept our CID but I am still researching the specific clause.
  7. Haha Thanks @Don Mansfield. I actually really like this idea. I will bring it up to my senior folks as a response to this Prime.
  8. Thank you for the response. This is similar to the approach my company uses. Prior to a purchase order, we are more than happy to work with the prime with any questions or concerns they have in determining our commerciality. Once the PO is placed though, we cease our cooperation. From my understanding, this is due to many primes requesting years after a PO is placed in many cases and we see no reason to support a CIJ after years of orders for the part. Their stance that we MUST provide the CIJ (1) after the purchase order has been placed and (2) if the USG has not declared the parts commercial previously, is where my confusion came.
  9. Hello again, We are currently subcontractors to a program and the prime has asked us for several commercial item determinations out of the blue. My company asserts commerciality of our parts on all quotes. They have always taken the stance that during valid period of the quote, and before a purchase order is placed, our company will provide any price analysis and assist in any commercial item justifications (CIJ). Should any price analysis or CIJ be provided, we do expect something in writing on the Prime's letterhead stating they accept our assertion of commerciality on the part numbers provided. That's a bit of background. Now, the prime has requested CIJ for several parts. Some of these parts were ordered years ago and some have open orders currently. To my knowledge, it is the Prime's responsibility to have done the price/cost analysis and price comparison at all times. Our prime is insisting that we, the sub, must provide CIJs with fair & reasonable price analysis for the parts requested. Our senior leadership insists this is not the case. I have reached out the DCMA to ask on the issue and they seem to side with us that ultimately, that responsibility was and is still the Primes but also encouraged us to work with the Prime if the DCMA is requesting the information. Sorry if this is a long read, my question is: Is our company correct in our assertion that this is all the Prime's responsibility and we are not obligated to provide CIJ? Is there a certain point from the RFQ, to the quote, to the purchase order where our obligation to provide ends? Going further, do we even have a obligation when during the RFQ, quote phase to provide anything? I believe the sub most likely does not have an obligation since the Prime can just move on before awarding any sub a contract if they refuse to provide a CIJ. Thank you.If there is any confusion, please let me know and I will do my best to answer it.
  10. StePa

    FAR 52.222-50 , Form X37101?

    Hello, I assumed this at first as well. I assumed the prime had a form specific to them but they are not Boeing. Googling the form also brought up various other companies that use the exact language. I am not sure if their contracts people just copied and pasted each others forms though. I was just worried that I'm searching in the completely wrong place and may have just missed the form. Thanks for your response.
  11. Hello, One of our primes sent an annual certification and the form asks whether we have received one or more subcontracts containing FAR 52.222-50 in which Form X37101, Certification Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons has been executed in the preceding 12 months and/or is currently performing such subcontract(s). I have searched for what Form X37101 is. I cannot seem to find any information using Google. The only other results are the actual FAR clause which makes no mention of this form and other companies which include this in their vendor certifications. Am I missing something? Could someone advise on what the form is? Thank you.
  12. StePa

    Commercial Item Justification

    @here_2_help Thank you. I just found it. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/31/2018-01781/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-procurement-of-commercial-items-dfars-case I have linked it here just in case there are other beginners that may run into the same issue and need the DFARS case.
  13. StePa

    Commercial Item Justification

    @here_2_help Hello. Thank you for the response. Yes, we sell the same part without minor modifications to the general public and can demonstrate both this as well as the modifications being "customarily available in the marketplace". @Retreadfed Our company has sold this particular part with the minor modification to the Prime only but have sold the part without modification to the general public. Thank you for the clarification. I was not sure if there was a rule where if a Prime had accepted the same exact part as a CI whether they could change their mind or not. The Prime rejected our CI status because we only sell this particular part with minor modification to them only and due to the prime accepting the parts as commercial previously, we had only submitted invoices where we sold the part to them previously. This is mainly due to our product being customarily modified to a customer's needs. All modifications are customarily available in the marketplace as this is done for both commercial and military contracts. Now that I understand there is no rule or guidance on a prime choosing to withdraw acceptance of the commerciality of the part, I believe it will be simple to address but will have to do a full commercial item justification providing redacted invoices of various sales and parts comparisons with similar products on the market. Thank you all for the help.
  14. Hello, I work for a sub who does business with a prime. We sell commercial item A,B,C, D. All parts sold to prime have minor modifications customarily available in the marketplace. We have sold Items A, B,C(w/ minor mods) to the prime in the past asserting commerciality and the Prime accepted our parts. Prime comes back a few years later with a purchase order for A,B,C and D. We fill out our commercial item justification for Part D but Prime has now come back and rejected A,B,C. So my question is.. once accepted as a commercial item by the Prime, can they now reject our commerciality for Parts A,B,C? The parts (w/ minor mods) are only sold to the Prime but are all catalog parts for our company (w/o the minor modifications). I guess I've never seen a prime suddenly state that parts which they bought in the past are now not commercial items. I'm sorry if I'm unclear. If I need to provide clarification, I will. Thank you.
  15. @ji20874 Yeah I agree with the options you've listed. I would assume a subcontractor's best option would be to do something @PhilBail suggested and ask for an additional fee/ pricing to collect the executive compensation data. The other information required by the clause could easily be obtained by the prime contractor on their own. Thanks for your input!
×