B2B.Consultancy

@WifWaf I can update our experience on this.

Despite generally unfavorable opinions we decided to support our non-US Client in testing this approach as a Sub-Contractor with his US-Prime in a major US Defense Acquisition Program.

- The Sub-Contractor requested to the Prime exception from Certified cost and pricing data as Nontraditional Defense Contractor,

- The Prime refused to lose the grip on certified cost and pricing data, also for the fear of potential non compliancy of their procurement system

- The Sub requested to pass the decision to the CO and the ACO, the requested was accepted.

- ACO clarified the exception was not a blanket one covering everything, but was connected to the single contract related to the request for exception, and that this was anyway not a determination of commerciality of the produced item but a simplification of the procurement process using "commercial-item-like" approach.

- CO approved for the specific proposal-negotiation process the exception due to the supplier qualifying as a Nontraditional Defense Contractor ("by default" being a foreign concern not subject to full CAS coverage). It was indeed underlined that the exception was granted for that single Proposal and a new request was needed in reply to each new RFP.

- negotiation process was very quick and also granted savings compared to the previous procurement cycles, based on a price analysis adjusted for updated market conditions.

I may be wrong, but the same should apply to small business concerns.

I thought that sharing an experience after all the very constructive exchanges I had on this forums could be beneficial to the community.

Thank you all for the possibility to clear our doubts and refine the mental process with your comments, links and questions.

Bye

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 and are automatically exempt, because I don't see what kind of "additional supporting information" can be reasonably requested being as it is by rules.

Thank you for considering my opinion.

But please someone spend a cent to review  the two questions in my previous post.

(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 accept it or not. This is easier whenever the supplier is obviously never subject to Full CAS because of it's nature. (E.g. small businesses and foreign concerns, considering the exemptions in 9903.201-1 "CAS Applicability" respectively at points (b)(3) and (b)(4))

Considering the above cited exemption granted from the Full coverage, the exemption from submitting certified cost and pricing data becomes applicable to a very large number of Companies: most of US small businesses and All non US Companies.

It is not like the simplification that could be reached with the application of PART 12 requirements the CO may decide to apply, but the exemption on 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E) is not subject to the CO determination and it still produces a non-negligible reduction in effort (cost and time) for all the stakeholders of the acquisition process (CO, DCAA/DCMA, Contractors and Subcontractors).

What do you think about this process improvement?

Question 1) Do you agree that the supplier does not have the need to wait for confirmation that the exemption is applicable?

Question 2) Is this exemption 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E) applicable also to the subcontractors being the DFARs part of the flowdowns? Or can a CO/prime contractor decide not to flowdown the clause or declare not applicable a portion of it (like specifically subpara (b)(1)(ii)(E))?

Thank you for any constructive opinion you may add.