Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  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 What is old is new again, , , , 7014 has been replaced by 7009, and the SAT has increased to $150K.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 "Prime Contractor" and is not a "flow down" to all subs, at all levels. Perhaps the prime should of pointed out this clause to us in its solicitation(?), but that would seem to be of no added value due to the fact that the Prime knows that we are not an "interested party" in accordance with the definitions found in Subpart 26.1. So, is my position correct? Thank you.
  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 otherwise perhaps write our own policies and procedures to "parrot" the FAR; given that the DCMA and DCAA auditor types are looking for things they recognize, etc. . . "Public Law", as in CAS, EEO, TINA, etc., is no problem but, just like the T&M discussion, what else really does apply to a "contractor - subcontractor" relationship, aside from flowdowns in the Prime Contract? Is there a published writing that would be helpful?
  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, also as such, there was no DRAS Rating loaded into our system. ?Only Government Contracts can have a DPAS Rating? etc. . . . We routinely worked on DO and DX jobs so this ?non-government, non-rated? job was solidly on the back burner. That is until the CUSTOMER started asking what was taking SO LONG. ?So long, why? This is a non-gov, non-rated job!?? Holy bat spit Batman!! We came to find out that the job was in fact DX, and otherwise spoken about in official circles as being the real ?Brick bat? thing. We received all of the ?special assistance? you?d never want to ask for. We had ?professional? instruction in regard to what to say and how to say it when we called up our suppliers to place orders and otherwise expedite existing orders. There were direct threats to impose the full force of law to get things moving. When all was said and done the nice folks at Commerce, FEMA, and the Customer were kind enough to give all of us some all day, mandatory, remedial, training in the fine art of DPAS. We later found out that the ?job? was in fact a major discussion point in the President?s morning security briefings and that our ?delay" was holding up a "mission" of the gravest type. I don?t want to know what it was.
  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 generic buyers that a note in the body of the PO would suffice for telling the supplier that the printed "Contractual Due Date" is really not the actual "Contractual Due Date" that they would be judged against. I'm trying gather a couple opinions before I push this to Legal.
  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? was exhibited on the face of the Purchase Order and was never changed unless there was very good reason to do so. The ?promise? date was ?understood?, but never exhibited to the supplier on the PO. The problem now lies with the lack of a ?Promise? date in the ?new? system. I can only assume, and would otherwise assert, that someone that was part of the interface between the software supplier and our company did not understand the nomenclature and use of the old system dates and also did not understand just what a contractually binding date exhibited on the face of a PO meant. The new system no longer has a ?promise? date that the Buyer can change/manage. The only date that a Buyer can change is the date that prints on the face of the PO as the ?Contractual Date? (delivery schedule). The problem is that the Operations group used the old promise date for real time planning, and the Business Management group used it for cash flow projections (when invoices would actually/likely be due). The lack of a ?promise date? puts these folks in a heck of a bind! So, , , , here is the problem, , , , we have been told to change the ?due date?, which automatically generates a Change Order that is issued to the supplier (in effect, the supplier will never be ?late" again). But, , , , the best part is that management still plans to judge the suppliers delivery performance on the basis of the originally issued ?due? date (which gets captured in the new system). And, , , , it gets better, , , , to get past this disconnect, , , , they intend us to put a ?Note? on the PO that says that the changed/new ?due? date (that prints on the face of the PO as the ?Contractual Date?) is not really the contractual date their performance will be judged on, but rather the originally issued date, which will no longer exhibit on the PO other than in a note! So, will have a PO with 2 ?Due? dates on it; one that says ?Contractual Date?, and another found in a PO note that says, in effect, ?this is the real date?. What do you think? Which date would you think that a Judge would favor, other than give you a funny look?
  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 previous job with a Very Large Contractor we dealt with sellers who had been "onboard" for decades and they knew how to work the system better than most employees! Well, , , , one of the new guys who came from another division issued a RFP for some standard parts and subsequently made an award to the lowest evaluated bidder without any further contact or discussions with the "losers". And well, , , , every one of the "losers" (all small businesses) wanted an "official" debrief as to why they did not get the job, which caused a really big stir in otherwise calm waters. All of the procurement group was called into an immediate, mandatory, meeting and were instructed in rather strong language that no one in the building was to ever issue a "RFP" again.
  • Create New...