Don Mansfield

I tried getting a score for this, but it came back as undefined: This was the excerpt from FAR 52.215-1 that I used for The Plain Language Writing contest a few years ago.

Wouldn't this also apply to the incorporation of FAR 52.222-41? FAR 22.1015 states:

Thanks for sharing your opinion on the matter, Vern. Just don't mistake it for a fact.

But didn't the ASBCA do this two years after the Court of Claims decision?

Did I say it should? All I said was it didn't. The Court does not address the issue of whether the implementing clause can be read in by operation of law. So, it's inapposite.

No, I don't. I said that I thought it would be inconsistent to read in the implementing clause by operation of law, but not the applicable wage determination. That case sheds no light on that issue.

I don't think either of us can prove a position, but your claim is inconsistent with Spectrum American Contractors, ASBCA No. 33039, 87-2 BCA P 19864, May 4, 1987.

That case is inapposite--the implementing clause was physically in the solicitation and contract, correct? Did the Court say whether or not the implementing clause could be read in pursuant to the Christian Doctrine?

@Vern Edwards, Retreadfed's presumption was that FAR 52.222-41 could be incorporated in to the OP's contract by operation of law. I wasn't sure from your post whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with that presumption. If we accept his presumption, then I think it would be inconsistent to argue that the applicable wage determination (the one that is supposed to be in the contract) would not also be incorporated by operation of law. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please cite a regulation or an authoritative decision.

@Vern Edwards, Do you think that the Christian Doctrine applies to the inclusion of FAR 52.222-41?

Yes. Assume that the CO was required by regulation to incorporate the new wage determination, but didn't.

The applicable definition of "subcontract" is at FAR 44.101: Contract is defined at FAR 2.101: So, if the prime truly has a BOA as described in the FAR, what they are saying sounds right.

It's number of pages in the CFR.

Thanks @Vern Edwards

@Retreadfed, How is omitting the correct wage determination from a contract different than omitting a required contract clause? Why wouldn't the applicable wage determination be read in to the contract by operation of law? Is the Government bound by the unauthorized inaction of its contracting officers?

I think you are reading in a requirement that just isn't there. These clauses can also be harmonized by considering FAR 52.222-41(c)(3), which states: This is not conditioned on attaching a new wage determination to the contract. The adjustment is conditioned on the length of the contract and the issuance of wage determinations by the Wage and Hour Division subsequent to the original contract award. I think a more harmonious interpretation of paragraph (c) is that the wage determination attached to the contract document applies upon award, but is subject to later adjustment upon the occurrence of the conditions stated in (c)(3). I haven't researched it, but your interpretation may also ignore paragraph (b), which states: Are these statutory and regulatory provisions predicated on the contracting officer modifying multiple year contracts to attach updated wage determinations?

Wouldn't this prohibit the COR from changing a due date for a deliverable?

You're welcome. Although, Vern is the one giving out awards. About 20+ years ago, Vern posted a question here and offered a prize to the first person submitting a correct response. I got it right and he sent me a copy of The Source Selection Answer Book. It was a good question--I'll ask it after the current contest is over.

There's something wrong with BrettK's citation. Who can spot it?

@Guardian, if you were trying to make a point, I missed it.

Keep reading.

Keep reading.

You could respond with: "As a policy, we notify the agency when we are not shown the final submission and inform them that we cannot vouch for any statements made about our company." Those pesky company policies. What are you gonna do?

No, I said it doesn't get you out of posting a synopsis.

This thread reminded me of that episode. I love that show.