Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

B2B.Consultancy

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About B2B.Consultancy

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 1a: I appreciate your point of view. But we also had here at least one point of view on the rule that may intend the exception to be applied at subcontractors level. paragraph (e) of the DFARs 252.215-7010 contains the flowdown requirement which requires to flowdown the exceptions to further levels of subcontracts, this is difficult to discard: "(e) Subcontracts. The Offeror shall insert the substance of this provision, including this paragraph (e), in subcontracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold defined in FAR part 2." In the promulgation comments (following your
  2. I think that point 2 of my original post has been discussed having all on the same opinion, for this specific point 2 I think my take-away is that the definition of NTDC do applies to a supplier that is exempt from CAS or subject to modified CAS, even if it had in the last 12 months a subcontract from a Prime, where the Prime Contract was Full CAS covered, because his subcontract cannot be considered full CAS covered, and so the definition of NTDC still applies. I don't see yet a final position (maybe I did not catch it) to support or discuss prime's rejection reasons on points 1a
  3. I'm sorry for the delay in the reply, I was on a long travel. Retreadfed, Always the same DFARS, I did not change focus. I followed what you posted and, considering it a good idea, I went to read the public comments and responses to the Proposed Rule on Federal Register and I found the two responses that I posted above. From that reading I was gaining the perception that there were more comments in favor of the applicability to subcontracts than contrary to that. I also understand that responses to public comments can just give an help reading the rule, but the text
  4. Neil, Thank you for your position, that I find very clear and helps me in further understanding the situation. I was confident that paragraph (b) was part of the flow down due to the first sentence of paragraph (c), which states that the requirements apply only IF none of the exceptions apply (the exceptions in paragraph (b)): 252.215-7010(c)Requirements for certified cost or pricing data. If the Offeror is not granted an exception from the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data, Further, following the suggestion of here_2_help, I went through the comments
  5. You are right, "exception" is the right one in this case, it would be an exception from submitting certified cost and pricing data. Thank you for the clarification. You are right, my question was on DFARs 252.215-7010. With the statement above I was referring the other 4 exceptions that are listed in DFARs 252.215-7010(b)(1)(ii), before the (E), I thought that all of them (or none of them if I got your position) should be applicable to the sub-contractor. Hopefully I clarified my understanding.
  6. Yes it does, specifically after 252.215-7010 "Contracting Officer means the Buyer", where the Buyer is defined as the Prime. is there a definition of sub-offeror? why the clause itself require the flowdown, if it cannot be used from a sub-contractor while sub-Offering? If this statement would be true, I think that we would have a bigger problem, because also the exceptions (b)(1)(ii)(A), (B), (C) and (D) would not apply to a sub-contractor... while it results to me are commonly used to require the exception for those categories of products. I do appreciate your point of v
  7. I agree on this, it is the rule in DFARs 252.215-7013. This applies the Part 12 to the procurement which is a far more relaxed requirement than "just" the exemption from certified cost and pricing data, which is what the 7010(b)(1)(ii)(E) seems to allow. It contains the requirement to what is necessary to ask for the exemption, that for the NTDCs is just the written statement... This change was planned because many (all?) NTDC do not have in place systems to certify the data, even if quality and price of products/services may satisfy the Customer, this gap in system/processes was exposing t
  8. I appreciate your reply, It is connected with the definition of NTDC, as far as I understand prime's position is that if you performed as subcontractor of a prime on a contract that for the prime is full CAS covered, you cannot claim the exemption because you do not fall anymore in the definition below. "Nontraditional defense contractor means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed any contract or subcontract for DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1502 and the regulations impleme
  9. Hi, the environment of this request is a DOD production project, a subcontractor submitting a proposal following a FFP RFP, requested by a US prime contractor on Part 15, on an alternative source subcontractor, for parts produced on Prime's design. The request is on the applicability of the DFARs 252.215-7010(b)(1)(ii)(E): exemption from submitting certified cost or pricing data for Nontraditional Defence Contractors (NTDC). (rule modified in Jan 2018) 1. the prime contractor is stating that the supplier (subcontractor) cannot request this exemption from submitting certified cos
  10. I meant that the rule states that - the Offeror may submit a written request for exemption than - The Contracting Officer may require additional supporting information, but only to the extent necessary to determine whether an exception should be granted But if a US small business in the written request proves that it does not have currently nor had in the last year Fully CAS covered contracts, or for example ALL non US Companies that are subject only to modified CAS coverage, just for being foreign concern they fall into the "Nontraditional defence contractor" definition an
  11. (post edited after further analysis of the rule, hyperlinks inserted and more clear questions) Hi, It was brought to my attention that there is also another significant possibility of simplification for a "nontraditional defense contractor", introduced with this DFARs change, which is in 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E). It states that if a nontraditional defense contractor just submits a written request for exemption based on this 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E) becomes automatically exempt from the submission of certified cost or pricing data, without the discretionality of the CO to acc
×
×
  • Create New...