Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ron vogt

Members
  • Content count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ron vogt

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,448 profile views
  1. Buy American Act and Services

    There may not be a separate TAA clause for services, but the TAA does apply to services, and the general TAA clause - 52.225-5 applies. FAR Part 25.4 addresses the TAA, including its applicability to services. For example, 25.402(a)(2) states that the country of origin of a service is the country in which the firm providing the services is established. The DFARS coverage is of course in 225.4.
  2. OK, so back to my question: when you say "If the mil-spec describes a commercial item, then it's a commercial item", then your answer is that AAP is incorrect in saying that a Milspec item cannot be a commercial item?
  3. I quoted the AAP question as referring to a MIL-STD. The answer also called it that. I don't know whether that's a correct designation, but that's not important to the question. Even if a MIL-Spec called out inspection and packaging, why would that disqualify it from being a commercial item? The commercial item definition focusses on the characteristics of the item, not how it's inspected. Can't it be a commercial item and still require certain inspection and packaging procedures?
  4. in yesterdays' AAP, the questioner asked whether MIL-STD target paper could be a commercial item. The procuring buyer had said no, because the MIL-STD paper was stronger. However, there probably are thousands of varieties of paper, and this particular variety of target paper would seem to fit both types of modifications permitted under the commercial item definition: modifications that are made for any customer, and modifications unique for the government customer, but minor. In addition, target paper, even Mil-STD target paper, would certainly seem to be 'of a type' of paper. Putting aside this particular case, the AAP answer went much further. It said categorically that "No - It's either MIL-STD or commercial it cannot be both." I'm interested in opinions on whether this is correct. If something is manufactured to a MIL-STD, is it categorically excluded from being a commercial item? If so, why?
  5. Made in America on GSA

    sackanator - I assume you meant that Taiwan is a designated country under the WTO GPA, not a qualified country. Qualifying countries (not qualified) are very different from designated countries.
  6. Commercial Item Determination

    In the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, section 851 requires DoD to establish a central office to oversee commercial item determinations, and provides that a prior determination will serve as a presumption of commerciality for subsequent acquisitions. There are several other provisions regarding price information, flowdown, etc., but this may have the most impact.
  7. BAA, TAA, and DoD

    Just a thought --- not saying this is the answer. The contract is with GSA, not DoD. A product qualifies by meeting GSA requirements, including the TAA. Would that make GSA laws, regulations etc. apply, even if DoD buys from it? i would be interested in hearing from DoD buyers. Do you buy anything from a GSA contract, or do you intentionally screen for the listed FSGs?
  8. There appears to be an error in the online version of the DFARS at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/225_0.htm The online version of 225.003 states, in the definition of a qualifying country: Accordingly, the following are qualifying countries: United States. The following are qualifying countries: Australia Austria Belgium Canada … The odd wording makes it look like a coding or a cut-and-paste error. Nevertheless, this is a serious error. The United States is NOT a qualifying country. For example, in the exception at 252.225-7009( c)(4) of the specialty metals clause, it could lead contractors to believe that their product is compliant by being manufactured in the US, whereas only a product manufactured in a qualifying country is eligible for the exception. This error is not repeated in the pdf or Word version, so it is likely only in the html version. You might want to check with your suppliers and your own production processes to make sure they are not relying on this. I have already come across one supplier that was. I have sent an email to DPAP, so I hope this will be corrected soon.
  9. Summer Reading 2014

    Does my daughter's geometry book count? Fortunately that will be spread out over a semester. Read "When/After Worlds Collide" waaaay back. May do so again now. I keep a folder of 'best this' or 'best that' lists, recommended reading, articles on authors, etc. One article was on P.G. Wodehouse, so I decided to try a Wodehouse anthology - two novels and several short stories. Almost through now, and worth every page.
  10. BAA, TAA, and DoD

    I'll go with careless too. Wouldn't be the first example in the FAR or DFARS. By the way, if you want some fun reading, go through the AAP responses on some BAA/TAA questions. 'nuff said.
  11. BAA, TAA, and DoD

    Don, Thanks for the response. I think that we largely agree on most points, and that it wouldn't be productive to engage in one of those "you said this" and then" I said that" exercises. The BAA/TAA/BOPP topic is bad enough. Much of the ambiguity is the result of careless drafting of parts 25 and 225. Although you say you wouldn't infer anything from the difference in the prescriptions for -7021 and -7036, others would say that the prescriptions are written exactly as they were intended. I lean towards the "careless drafting" explanation, as do you I think, but the other interpretation isn't without foundation. BTW, I have a large collection of articles, briefing papers, etc, on all BAA/TAA topics, and I can assure you that the ambiguous terms are used interchangeably in them. One article stated that the definitions in the BAA and TAA are "almost inscrutable." Another stated that 'eligible products' overlaps 'designated products' but was broader, because it includes the Israeli Trade Act and the Civil Aircraft Agreement. I think you and I would both disagree with that. Ambiguities aside, here are the larger points that I think we agree on. Please feel free to correct this. 1. Eligible countries are WTO GPA and FTA countries. Designated countries are those plus Caribbean Basin and least developed countries. Despite some usage of these terms that suggests otherwise, I believe this is the most reasonable interpretation. 2. It's a common shorthand, but it's not accurate to talk about a TAA threshold. The TAA implements several agreements, which have different thresholds. The table in 25.402(b ) lists these. The highest is the WTO GPA threshold of $204k, which typically gets called the TAA threshold. I was guilty of that above and I should have been more clear. I'm not 100% sure about the next, so please comment: 3. The "trade agreements" that the FAR and DFARS talk about are the WTO GPA and the FTAs. Products from these countries are eligible products. Products from Caribbean Basin countries and least developed countries are then "treated as eligible products.' (FAR 52.404 and 405). That's why the difference in the definitions of eligible and designated. However, I have to add that while DFARS 225.401-70 talks about the applicability of the "trade agreements" to the listed FSGs, it also talks about Caribbean Basin countries in the same paragraph. That shouldn't be there if the trade agreements are just the WTO GPA and FTA. Then again, maybe it's there because Car.Bas. and L.Dev. products get "treated as" eligible products. Finally, the BOPP. Reduced to its basics, it's just the BAA applied to products for use outside the US, although it doesn't apply below the SAT of $150k. In short, it requires the purchase of domestic or qualifying country products, and then when you reach an FTA threshold, products from those countries as well. Once you go above the WTO GPA threshold of $204k, the BOPP will apply only to the non-listed FSGs, and not to the listed FSGs because of the exception at 252.225-7501(a )(3). That's all. I think in the earlier exchanges we may have been talking past each other a bit. I hope this clears it up.
  12. BAA, TAA, and DoD

    Don, I fully agree that parts 25 and 225 are the most difficult to understand. It certainly doesn't help that they are written inconsistently, and that parts are internally inconsistent. Try figuring out the difference between eligible products and designated country products, and you'll go in circles. It's not surprising that a GAO study found that the wrong clauses were used in over 60% of solicitations and contracts. From personal experience, I can tell you that many COs just throw in all of the clauses in the hopes that they have covered everything, not realizing that the use of some excludes the use of others. Now, going back to your post #5, the "not exactly" part: I believe I have a small correction. -7036 is the clause you would use (or one of the alternates) when you are below the full TAA threshold, but over the various Free Trade Agreement (FTA) thresholds. -7021 is the full TAA clause, used when you are above the WTO GPA threshold of $204k. There are important differences between the two. For example, below the WTO GPA threshold, a domestic product is required, along with the appropriate FTA product. Above the threshold, a US-made product is acceptable. The difference, of course, is the 50% content requirement for domestic products. Another example is the purchase restriction of the TAA. It applies when you are over the WTO GPA threshold, but does not apply to the FTAs. Well, another minor correction: -7036 does not mention either eligible products or designated country products. -7021 allows designated country products, but does not mention eligible products. The word 'eligible' only shows up in the exception to the BOPP. This brings us back to the problem I mentioned above: the difference between eligible and designated. Well, OK, another. When applying the BOPP, I don't think that both the TAA and the BOPP could apply. First, the TAA is a law that covers the applicability of the WTO GPA, the FTAs, and other agreements such as the treatment of Caribbean Basin countries and least-developed countries. The exception to the BOPP is only for when the WTO GPA applies, which is when you are over $204k. Second, the WTO GPA is an exception to the BOPP, so you can't have both. That's why the -7021 clause is just entitled "Trade Agreements," and -7001 and -7036 have BOPP in the title. In the scenario under discussion in this thread, we are also looking at what it means to have "the trade agreements" apply. DoD only applies "the trade agreements" to the FSGs listed in DFARS 225.401-70. Does that mean collectively all agreements covered by the TAA, or just the FTAs? You could find arguments for both. For example, the prescription for -7036 (for FTAs), specifically says "for the items listed at 225.401-70," while the prescription for -7021, the full WTO GPA clause, does not. From this you would think that the restriction to the listed FSGs only applied to the FTAs. However, the text of the WTO GPA itself contains the exception to the listed FSGs for DoD. Which is it? Who can possibly know? Unfortunately it makes a difference in whether a product needs to be domestic or can just be US-made. It also determines whether the purchase prohibition applies or not.
  13. It is either a sad commentary or a hilarious one, or maybe both, that a long-standing principle of government contracting law was best summed up in "Animal House": "You f****d up. You trusted us."
  14. Discussion Board

    The 'remember me' works, but the 'view new content' button at the top right doesn't alwyas work. It often reports no new content, when there are clearly posts I haven't read in the past 24 hours.
×