Don Mansfield

Which clause are you referring to? MTL listed two.

See http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657944.pdf.

I was trying to determine which clause would go in your BPA. If the WTO GPA applied pursuant to FAR 25.403( b )(3), then I think that your BPA would have to include FAR 52.225-5, which would apply to all calls. That clause requires delivery of U.S.-made or designated country end products. Do any of the exceptions at FAR 25.401( a ) apply?

Regarding the TAA, FAR 25.403( b )(3) states: I could not find an analogous rule for the BAA. In your situation, what would be the value of awards in the busiest 12-month period?

I can't find anything that would prohibit a contractor from disclosing its own CPARS report.

Don't CPARS reports say "Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104." on the bottom?

1. No. 2. N/A. FAR 16.505( b )(1)( v ) states: FAR 2.101 defines "should" as follows: So, you don't have to use PP as an evaluation factor.

metteec, I don't know why you think that. All FAR 52.212-4( c ) says is: This paragraph just specifies that changes to terms and conditions must be bilateral and be in written form. This is not a grant of authority. If the paragraph were not in a contract, it would have no effect on the parties' ability to modify the contract bilaterally. I don't think it makes sense to cite a contract clause as an authority for executing a bilateral modification, unless the bilateral modification makes a negotiated adjustment pursuant to a contract clause. In that case, the citation of the clause communicates that new consideration is not required. I have also seen the applicable exception to CICA cited as an authority when a bilateral modification adds new work, which is consistent with other forms used for awarding contracts. In all other cases, it doesn't really make sense to cite an authority. Some modifications cite "mutual agreement of the parties", which is perfectly fine. People spend a lot of time worrying about what to cite in block 13 of the SF 30, but it is of little consequence. I know of no case where a bilateral modification was deemed invalid because the contracting officer cited the wrong "authority" in block 13C.

Let me guess. You think that FAR 52.212-4( c ) would have to be cited in block 13C, but since your hypothetical contract would not have FAR 52.212-4( c ) there would be no "authority" to cite. As such, you would not have any authority to modify the contract. Is that what you think?

What type of modification?

I wouldn't do either. I would clarify with the offeror. FAR 15.306(a)(2):

Steveatus, Did the presentation say that it was DoD policy to order the minimum upon award of an IDIQ contract? If so, that is not true.

It is DoD policy that only contracts for personal services may prohibit the assignment of claims. See DFARS 232.803. The DoD COs that you have dealt with probably don't know this I don't know what the VA's policy is, the VAAR didn't say anything. For other agencies, see agency supplements.

What agency are you dealing with?

I agree with that. However, the GAO thinks that for 8(a) contracts awarded under PAs, contracting officers are currently required to include clauses requiring reporting. They think that because that's what they were told (from p. 5 of the report): When the contracting officers interviewed for the report stated that they didn't think they could compel subcontract reporting, the GAO report implied that they were wrong. From p. 10 of the report: I think that agencies are going to read this report and believe that their contracting officers should have been imposing subcontract reporting requirements in 8(a) contracts awarded under PAs. As a result, I think we may see more contracting officers imposing these requirements before the rulemaking process has run its course.

Carl, What did you find misleading about my quote? The GAO was assessing compliance with that specific provision of the PA.

formerfed, If the Data Item Description cited on the CDRL required reporting of subcontract costs, then I don't think there would be a problem with the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, I think that a policy requiring the submission of such reports whenever awarding contracts under the 8(a) program would be a FAR deviation and subject to the public notice and comment process pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707.

formerfed, Which monthly status reports are you referring to? Those required by a FAR clause? A CDRL? Something else?

How many of you think that contracting officers are responsible for imposing a subcontract reporting requirement on 8(a) contractors so that COs can monitor compliance with the limitations on subcontracting clause (FAR 52.219-14)? The reason I ask is because the GAO recently faulted COs for not imposing such a requirement in 8(a) contracts awarded pursuant to agency partnership agreements (PA) with the SBA. The most recent PA that I could find between DoD and the SBA contained the following DoD "responsibility": I assume that similar language appears in PAs between the SBA and other agencies. Note that FAR 52.219-14 does not require subcontract reporting. Nothing in the FAR or DFARS requires COs to obtain the information or the contractor to report it. OMB has not approved an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act for reporting subcontract information other than the reporting required for contractors with subcontracting plans. Some questions that come to mind: 1. If a contracting officer were to impose the subcontract reporting requirement that the GAO thinks they should be imposing, would that be a deviation from the FAR? 2. Do contracting officers have the authority to impose the subcontract reporting requirement that the GAO thinks they should be imposing without the requirement going through the rulemaking process? (41 U.S.C. 1707 requires that procurement rules be published for comment in the Federal Register when they have "a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.”) 3. If contracting officers started requiring the subcontract reporting that the GAO thinks they should be requiring, would that be an authorized "collection of information" under the Paperwork Reduction Act? In my opinion, the COs have not done anything wrong. I think that it's up to the DAR Council to put the requirement through the rulemaking process. They have either neglected to do so or made a conscious decision not to do so. What's your opinion?

This is the most recent survey that is free.

Dan, You may want to check if your contracts contain DFARS 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration. One of the system criteria is that the contractor's purchasing system shall: If you're not doing your price analysis on the $42K widgets, you are risking payment withholding.

Did you look in 41 CFR parts 60-1 and 60-2?

LFO?

Are you referring to offeror responses to FAR 52.222-22 and -25?

That's a good question. We'll have to wait until the proposed SBA rule is issued to see what it says. If it's silent, somebody needs to ask that question.