Navy_Contracting_4

FAR 16.505(a)(7)(iii) merely says: This paragraph has nothing to do with IGCEs or solicitations.

Vern, Did you overlook FAR 16.401(d)'s requirement for a D&F for incentive and award-fee conracts, or did you intentionally exclude it for some reason?

I'm not familiar with the term "D&F report," but if you're asking whether the FAR 17.207 requirement for a written determination applies in these circumstances, I would say "Yes," as I could find no exception to FAR 17.207 for the circumstances you describe. As a matter of fact, I found no exceptions to FAR 17.207 at all.

Why couldn't/shouldn't the recruiting fees be charged direct and be reimbursable per FAR 31.205-34(a)(6)? That's assuming the fees are "not in excess of standard commercial rates."

Were you required by the terms of your contract to provide a proposal? If not, then the costs must be recovered through the appropriate indirect expense pool (see FAR 31.205-18.) If the terms of your contract explicitly required you to submit a proposal, then you may have a case for an equitable adjustment, depending on what the precise terms of your contract say about the matter.

Boof, Isn't this addressed in FAR 4.704?

H2H, Yes, they do. And they also operate similarly with respect to exceeding the funding limit, whether it's incrementally funded or fully funded. Compare the excerpt from FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds, to the one above from FAR 52.232-20.

jpayne, Are you asking about the situation alluded to in paragraph (f) of FAR 52.232-20,Limitation of Cost?

Vern, Why do you suggest that Weno2 check DFARS 215.371, "Only one offer." S/he received 5 offers.

Perhaps they're interpreting FAR 5.203( b ) -- as providing flexibility for acquisitions between $25,000 and the SAT.

H. R. 4435, the Buck McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, passed the House 5/22/2014, and included the following: "SEC. 806. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR USE OF SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS. Section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (division D of Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) is amended by striking subsection (e)." So now it's up to the Senate to decide whether to go along with making it permanent or not, but at least it's on the agenda, and at a minimum should be extended, if not made permanent.

In any case, I expect your contract includes FAR 52.232-17, Interest, and that addresses the rate to use, if interest is due at all.

H2H, I don't see where the applicability of FAR 32.6, Contract Debts, is limited to debts related to CAS matters. Can you point me to that restriction? Regarding your last point, I agree, (unless the repayment is not made before, or within 30 days after, issuance of a demand letter), and that is consistent with FAR 32.604(b )(4)(ii).

It may depend on the reason for the overpayment. Does your contract include FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment? See paragraph (d) Overpayments, and then read FAR 32.6, particularly 32.604(b )(4).

The "original contractor" is still the contractor, so that's what goes in Block 8, NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR. An assignee does not become a party to the contract in any way, and the assignment has no bearing on the contractor's obligation to perform/deliver. Could you, by any chance, be thinking about incorporation of a novation agreement?

No company, large or small, may be required to provide certified cost or pricing data for commercial items (see FAR 15.403-1((3).) However, see also, FAR 15.403-1(c )(3), and particularly15.403-1(c )(3)(ii)(C ) -- "...[if needed to determine price reasonableness,]...relevant information regarding the basis for price or cost, including information on labor costs, material costs and overhead rates may be requested.

general, I understood the situation to be that the subcontractor was not a "once-upon-a-time" subcontractor, but a subcontractor that was being proposed on the specific solicitation under which Offeror A had submitted a proposal. And just to be clear, I did not recommend entering into discussions. Award without discussions is addressed in FAR 15.306., as well as with discussions. I can't tell from the minimal info provided by govt2310 whether discussions are necessary or not.

I'd be inclined to exclude this particular questionnaire from the evaluation and proceed in accordance with FAR 15.306.

Is this subcontractor being proposed by Offeror A or another offeror?

That's definitely what I would advise. There's no sense in putting folks through the Certified Cost or Pricing Data drill if we're not going to proceed with a contract.

I don't believe "rate" is defined by the clause in any way, so per FAR 1.108(a), “rate” retains its common dictionary meaning. In the context as used in this clause, Random House Dictionary defines "rate" as "a certain quantity or amount of one thing considered in relation to a unit of another thing and used as a standard or measure: at the rate of 60 miles an hour." Another example would be dollars in relation to time. In your example, the employee is being paid at the rate of $500,000 per year. But I expect he doesn't get paid just once a year; he probably gets paid at a rate of $41,866 a month, or perhaps he gets paid at the rate of $19,230 every two weeks, or even, possibly, at the rate of $240 per hour. And doesn't $240 an hour equate to $144,000 for 600 hours? My point is, those are all the same "rate." Thus, no matter what anyone else says, or how they interpret some memo or FAQ, to my way of thinking, allowing that $144,000 for that employee’s 600 of work on that contract is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law, and of the clause.

Your assumption is correct.

I have no experience with the clause, but I do object to the above interpretations, because they ignore the word "rate" in the statutory language. Rate requires two parameters, such as in a rate of speed (miles per hour) or rate of pay (dollars per year (or per month, or per hour)). I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that someone who gets paid at the "rate" of $144,000 per 600 hours is clearly getting paid at a "rate" that exceeds $200,000 per year. Oh, I almost forgot; this is WIFCON, so I probably will be contradicted by someone - but I just don't fear it.

The OFPP Pamphlet that is no longer in effect explains "Surveillance Plan" thusly: Certainly, if the QASP is the only place that specifies sampling guides, checklists, and decision tables, then it needs to be provided with the solicitation and made a part of the contract. In my experience, test requirements, including sampling guides, checklists, and decision tables, have been a part of the specification or SOW, not just in a QASP.

I have to agree with Joel's original answer on this. I don't consider a QASP to be a "technical requirement[] . . . relating to the quality of the product or service" nor is it one of the "contract clauses prescribing inspection, and other quality controls incumbent on the contractor." I consider it a plan for how the government is going to monitor the contractor's compliance with those technical requirements and contract clauses, so while some, or even all of the requirements and clauses may be mentioned in the QASP, it isn't the QASP that imposes the requirements. Thus, I also agree that FAR 46.201 is not saying the QASP shall be included in the solicitation/contract.