jeffh

I agree with all above. A typical justification for one vendor appearing in or submitting multiple proposals would be if the purpose of the proposals distinguished among distinct technical approaches. However, while it may not fun afoul of the specific ts&cs of a teaming agreement or NDA, it could raise the specter of impropriety or conflict of interest and lead to contest of an award, litigation, damages, etc. Point being, I wouldn't rely on a loosely crafted teaming agreement that did not contemplate the possibility that one party might submit a proposal that excluded the partner as my firewall. I would probably err on the side of caution and "full disclosure" here and reveal my intent with the government and your teaming partners well prior to deadline. This should ferret out potential protests or problems and keep you on the high road.

What I was able to find on this question: CHAPTER 6. USE OF U.S.-FLAG CARRIERS Cargo Preference Laws The use of U.S.-flag vessels by officers and employees of the United States for the transportation of their personal effects and use of U.S.-flag certified air carriers for any Government-financed movement of freight by air is required by statute (46 U.S.C. App. Sec.1241 and 49 U.S.C. 40118) when such vessels and air carriers are available. Compliance with these statutes is required whether the United States pays the transportation charges to the direct or through reimbursement of an individual or other entity. Taken from: http://www.fss.gsa.gov/transtrav/gblHandbook.pdf Hope this is helpful

Well, seems to me the common denominator of the clauses above is that the contractor shouldn't be delinquent according to the Ts&Cs of their agreement(s) with sub(s), which should normally call for payment of subcontractor invoices within 30 days of the contractor's payment request to the government. I glanced back at the FAR and the regs are distinct according to the contract type and form. There may also be terms in a subcontract wrt acceptance criteria of work performed, unacceptable costs, refusal of reimbursement by government, etc. which come to bear in a discussion about timing of payments. So, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I would just say it's an area where the variables specific to the situation would need to be clarified in order to determine a Contractor's compliance with the FAR and with the subcontract. By the letter of the law, you may very well be right--Ts&Cs timing payments to subs contingent upon timing of reimbursement by the government may not comply with FAR. For me, I'll deem what are reasonable Ts&Cs given the work to be performed, etc. The Government pays pretty fast, so if I can get terms paying me within 30 of the Government's payment, I'm satisfied, unless my customer (the sub in this discussion) needs different terms for cashflow or whatever and then I'll pitch for better terms. But generally, I'll make that pitch based on a business-need argument rather than a compliance issue. If the prime ever becomes delinquent to a point that it's causing me a problem, I may squawk to the Government. But I'm discussing stuff you may not care about... I don't know your situation giving rise to the question. Wrt the DCAA situation, it wasn't a false claim in the sense that no work had been performed or fictitious invoices submitted. The work had been performed and an invoice submitted by the sub--the sub really didn't care to be paid until the following fiscal, so wasn't pushing the prime for payment. However, when DCAA uncovered and despite everyone's good intentions, DCAA required the payment be made to the sub or reimbursed to the government immediately--about $40k. The sub was notified to expect a check overnight delivery, they didn't complain and DCAA was satisfied.

Miller does not establish a specific period for release of obligation under a federal construction performance bond. Performance bonds guarantee a specific contract. The surety is obligated until contractual promises are fulfilled by the obligated principal, i.e. contractor. So I would say it would depend on the terms of the specific contract. If there have been no claims of breach or termination for default and all contractual obligations met by the contractor, the surety is released of obligation. WRT payment bonds, I believe claims must be made within one year of the date of the sub's or suppliers last work on the project. Hope that helps.

Making payment to subs only after receiving payment from the government is typical. The one area where I have seen a prime run into a problem was withholding payment to a sub (essentially indefinitely) after payment for the sub's work was made by the government. A DCAA audit revealed the situation and DCAA required the payment to made to the sub or reimbursed to the government.

My understanding (2 cents)-- For prime contract modifications, new subcontracts at any tier, and subcontract modifications, the applicable cost or pricing data threshold is established by the prime contract. If the prime exceeds the 650k threshold and no other exceptions apply, I believe the analysis will be required. In particular, "The award of a subcontract at any tier, if the contractor and each higher-tier subcontractor were required to submit cost or pricing data (but see waivers at 15.403-1©(4)). " seems to require it if the prime required it--again, unless a waiver or exception apply.