Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Buyerboy

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Buyerboy

  • Rank
    New
  1. What is old is new again, , , , 7014 has been replaced by 7009, and the SAT has increased to $150K. But, none-the-less, , , , I am now with a Small Business subcontractor. I find that quite a few of our customers (all "Primes") flow down 252.225-7009 in their standard Terms and Conditions. But, , , , as only applicable if their Purchase Order/Subcontract to us is over the SAT. Their Prime Contracts are most likely way over the SAT.
  2. Seems so, , , , but, I was asked to research "Specialty Metals" in regard to DFARS Clauses to incorporate into our own "boiler plate" Ts&Cs, which currently still has "7014". I was told that one of our main customers used "-7014". So, , , , I dug into it and found that they include "-7014 Alt 1" in their boiler plate, along with "-7009".
  3. How should I treat DFARS Clause 252.225.7014 as a flow-down from a Prime? "7014" was cancelled some time ago and, as far as other Customers' "boiler plate" goes, has been replaced with 252.225.7008 and 252.225.7009.
  4. Oh, , , , and one thing that I missed during the "roll out", , , , that the supplier "Certify" the data!
  5. Well, , , , we are a large defense contractor and are "rolling" this out in Procurement today. There are those at Corporate who have dictated that this reporting is Mandatory; as in "no data, no award"! My two major foreign suppliers (sole source) have already told me, in so many ways and words, that I must be silly to think that they would supply such information. Stay tuned.
  6. Well, this has come up again. Our corporate types have said that ORCA is OK, and I'm fine with that determination. But, otherwise, what specific "cluase", rule, etc., would say that the subcontractor must certify to me?
  7. Well, , , , and, , , , One "big" thing about the clause is the "5% incentive payment. Getting stares here. So, if I award a sub to one of our "regular" sellers with this clause flowed down, and they then issue a sub to an "Indian organization", where is the "5%" for my sub going to come from? Not from me! And, certainly not from the Prime, and who want's to convince the KO that he should cough up the "5% for a third tier sub?
  8. We are a large business and a 1st tier subcontractor to the Prime. The Prime Contract has the subject clause in it (I still have unanswered questions in regard to whether the Prime "flowed" it to us in its order, or is it only found in the "prime contract", which we have a copy of). An internal, corporate, auditor has really "stirred the pot" in our procurement group because the subject clause was not "flowed down" on the concerned Purchase Orders that were issued to our subs. I received very unfavorable looks when I pointed out that this clause only applies between the "Government" and the
  9. We are a large business, DoD prime contractor, and have an approved procurement system (CPSR). Vern's recent post in regards to T&M rates relating to a "Prime - Sub" relationship brings up a good question. I've gotten similar "does not apply to you" answers here in the past but, , , , have gotten rather dirty looks when I have talked about it at work. I work for/with a lot of Old School types who believe that the FAR is the final word in all concerned matters, even though we are a private company, versus being Government. I do understand that it is a good idea to "follow" the FAR and to o
  10. Consider what this may mean to a wide selection of involved parties: ?700.91 Records and reports. (a) Persons are required to make and preserve for at least three years, accurate and complete records of any transaction covered by this regulation (OMB control number 0694?0053) or an official action.? Many years ago, , , , and my first real ?run in? with the DPAS Regs. . . . We in procurement were working on a REALLY HOT JOB, but we did not know it because; the customer ?did not exist? and the contract number was CLASSIFIED. And as such there was no contract number loaded into the system and,
  11. Update, , , , One of the other Buyers here just asked me about writing and sending a "Show Cause" letter. I asked them, and yes, they have been continually changing the "Contractual Due Date" on the Purchase Order(s). They, and their boss, were not happy about my answer of "How can you, the printed PO delivery schedule says they are not late, and/or are otherwise to schedule"!
  12. Well, in my part of the "Procurement World" there is no such thing as "permitting" a supplier to deliver late. I have no other choice than to just urge them to deliver as soon as they can. Happens everyday, everywhere I have worked. The supplier's "delivery performance" rating is gigged, but they, and I, know that I will soon be back to place another order for more precious, sole source, material. This is a non-issue in regard to my original post. My concern is with the now "secret" original due date that is locked into our business sytem and, more importantly, the assumption by the generi
  13. Business Type: Large DoD Contractor We recently transitioned to a new ?business system? and have encountered various Procurement related problems. This post describes one particular problem. First, the ?old? system. The ?old? system let us ?manage? 3 different dates; the planner/program ?need? date, the Purchase Order negotiated contractual ?due? date and a ?promise? date which was used to track/update the date that the supplier said they would really deliver once it became known that they would not meet the ?due? date. The ?promise? date was used for internal planning. Only the ?Due Date
  14. Interesting read! In regard to "vendor", , , , some years ago I started work at a new company. My previous experience said that suppliers were "vendors". I was quickly corrected by my new boss; "Vendors are those who sell hot dogs on street corners. We deal with sellers." And in regard to offer versus quote, , , , I still go around in circles with folks at my current job. There are those who will only issue RFPs as a matter of self importance, even though the requirement is for a standard drawing item with no mysteries involved, and all they are looking for is a "quote" anyway. At my prev
×
×
  • Create New...