Jump to content

Prezmil2020

Members
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Prezmil2020

  1. Jeddy,

    FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) states, in part:

    Quote

    When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

    (1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation.

     

    I would make completion of the pricing table an evaluation factor and state award will not be considered if the pricing table is not completely filled out, unless you are willing to entertain discussions.  Curiously, I presume you are making a single award.  If so, I would also include in Section M that only the lowest priced proposal will be evaluated and if determined acceptable will be awarded the contract and no further proposals will be evaluated.  If you plan on awarding multiple contracts based on some range of lowest priced proposals, I would state the same.

  2. Sorry for the delayed response.  I was prepping for the Marine Corps Marathon.  Here's what I initially sent apsofacto:

    "I don't think anything is wrong with the sentence as written.  The word 'which' is used as a pronoun, indicating a relationship between the red tag and the engines.  Therefore, logic would dictate that only engines with a red tag are to be removed and rebuilt.  Perhaps to be more clear, I would suggest the following revision:

    The Contractor shall only remove and rebuild engines marked with a red tag."

    After reading Vern's comments, I concur that the sentence is in fact misleading and one could interpret the instructions as indicating all engines have a red tag.

    The bottom line from this exercise, be careful when drafting a document as contra proferentem will dictate in most cases.

  3. The contract was awarded under FAR Part 8. I provide cradle to grave contracting support.

    Vern, when it became an issue 3 months ago; I addressed it with the COR...he pretty much dismissed me. So, I addressed it with my PM; as a result of that conversation, I received a Performance Improvement Plan. I have also addressed it with the COR's supervisor... no results. Prior to this individual becoming the COR, I was assigned my task and left to complete them. Now, the new COR tells me how to do everything right down to how to create a routing sheet. All based on personal preference and not regulations. It is affecting my productivity.

    I'm not whining; I just want to be left alone; so, I can do my job. I did lots of research and apparently I have to file an EEO compliant prior to filing a lawsuit.

    I'm looking for any written guidance I present which states CORs cannot interfere with the contractor's work. I know the Air force has such written guidance.

    Rye,

    Did your employer or did the Government provide you with the Performance Improvement Plan? If the Government did, is this a personal or non-personal services contract?

  4. dkubis -

    Just some rhetorical questions for you to consider…

    Why are you doing a LPTA RFQ? Have you read FAR 8.404(a)?

    Why are you not using these? Reference - http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100623

    Where in FAR in 8.405-4 does it say that when seeking a discount you cannot “negotiate”?

    Is getting “concessions” from a contractor negotiation? Reference - http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/200397

    Culham,

    Where does it state in FAR Paragraph 8.404(a) that the use of LPTA is strictly prohibited?

  5. I know this is a little late, but couldn't help but chime in. Opinions galore in the area of exercising options on a TO when its GSA Contract is dead. One of the better arguments in favor of it can be seen here: http://interact.gsa....schedule-orders. I also agree that one CAN exercise options on a TO after its GSA Contract is dead. After all, the GSA contract contains 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (DEVIATION I—JAN 1994) (I assume , Vern, it is an authorized deviation). Para (d) states "(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor's and Government's rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract's effective period." So, the question is: A Task Order "with options" is still an "order" is it not? Exercising an option is certainly not considered a NEW order right? Clearly the clause allows you to complete the order. The only gray area then is price.

    If the TO options included out year pricing that followed its GSA contract out year option's prices (and that GSA contract option was never exercised OR it was exercised with lower prices), the TO's option prices (when exercised) could never be above its GSA contract's price when it (the GSA Contract) was last alive OR (if GSA Contract Option was exercised with lower prices) above its then current GSA Contract pricing. Usually (not always) if price is a significantly important factor, the TO prices will be far enough below its GSA Contract prices to not be concerned with this pricing gray area. That's enough outta me. Happy Halloween everyone!

    The passage you quoted states "Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order." I agree that if the base period or option period is issued during the effective period of the contract then the contractor can continue performing until said period ends, even after the contract period of performance expires. However, if the contract's period of performance expired no new options can be exercised.

  6. No. There is no issue that I know of. And on what basis do you understand that you cannot award an IDIQ against an IDIQ?

    It is my understanding that when an IDIQ is awarded the government does not know the exact amount of goods or services it requires nor when it will need them. When a specific bona fide need arises, the government will issue an order under the IDIQ's scope, terms and conditions. If the order itself is indefinite in quantity or delivery, what then was ordered?

    The FAR defines a delivery order as "an order for supplies placed against an established contract or with Government sources" and a task order as "an order for services placed against an established contract or with Government sources." If the order itself is open-ended, did the government really order something?

  7. Vern/Fizzy,

    Yes, the award is acting like a BPA (I understand that you cannot award an IDIQ against an IDIQ). I do not know the dollar amount, but if it did exceed $103 million I can see where this is an issue because it could run afoul of 8.405-3(a)(3)(ii). Assuming it is less than $103 million, there is no legal issue in having a task order act like a "mini-IDIQ" when the intent of a task order is to have the contractor perform a specific task(s)?

  8. Good Morning,

    I overheard a KO state that he awarded a competitively procured T&M task order under a GSA FSS contract. Each POP has an estimated NTE and the government sends the contractor specific projects and tasks that it needs to submit a FFP for before proceeding. If the government accepts the FFP it fully funds the project while at the same time technically incrementally funding the overall total estimated NTE of the task order. I am assuming that there is a minimum guarantee in the task order to make it legally binding but I am not sure. Nonetheless, I was curious what others think of this practice. In theory it reduces the government's risk by requiring the contractor to perform work under FFP once specific projects/information is known. It also reduces the overall PALT by not having to procure the service using FAR Part 15 procedures (assuming that the work fits under the scope of the FSS contract). When the task order was procured, I am assuming that the government could not provide enough specifics for contractors to provide FFP across the board. I plan on following up with the KO but wanted to start a discussion on this and see what issues/ideas come from it.

    Prezmil2020

  9. From the VA Handbook 6500.6:

    "d. Custom software development and outsourced operations must be located in the U.S. to the maximum extent practical. If such services are proposed to be performed abroad and are not disallowed by other VA policy or mandates, the contractor/subcontractor must state where all non-U.S. services are provided and detail a security plan, deemed to be acceptable by VA, specifically to address mitigation of the resulting problems of communication, control, data protection, and so forth. Location within the U.S. may be an evaluation factor."

    Does anyone know of any federal policies or VA policy/mandates that would prohibit software development OCONUS?

    Thanks,

    Prezmil2020

  10. RJH46,

    I would explain to the KO that he/she still has the ability to invoke -9 via a bilateral modification. Since the government failed to provide you of its intent to extend at least sixty days the government can no longer unilaterally exercise the option. However, this does not mean that the two parties cannot agree via a bilateral modification to exercise the option.

  11. I've always had a problem with the FSS contracts in so far that when the solicitation is amended, the contracts are mass modified to reflect the deleted, added and changed clauses. However, the solicitation and resultant mass modification happens every so often; therefore, the contracts tend to lag behind the current FAR. With that said, wouldn't it behoove the OCO to review the current solicitation and contract and add the current FAR clauses into it even if that means adding the current 52.212-4 in the task order solicitation? Also, there are times when the FSS contract does not contain every clause that is applicable to the OCO's procurement (data rights, options, DFARs, etc.).

  12. Although equitable treatment of the offers may be an issue in the acquisition, it is not the issue with respect to your original request for feedback about needing a J&A. The issue in that respect is the failure to solicit competition for the -8 option prices and to consider the result of the competition when making your decision about whom to give the task order. Since the -8 option was not priced as part of the competition for the order, and since the option prices were not considered in making the award decision, adding the -8 option clause after award was inappropriate and exercising the -8 option would constitute a new work modification, for which you must either get competition or prepare a J&A. That's the gist of the GAO decision that I cited earlier, and it is consistent with GSA's ordering guidance.

    I have given you the feedback you sought in your original post, so I'm signing off, unless someone thinks they can show that my analysis is wrong.

    Vern,

    I appreciate the responses!

  13. I do not assume that 52.217-8 applies individually to task orders. I don't know whether it does or not. I do think it applies if invoked in a solicitation for an order. However, invoking it is not enough. You must price the option and consider the option price during evaluation.

    Let's assume that 52.217-8 does flow down to individual task orders. Since the task order solicitation was absent on how each offeror was to price the possible 6 months but did require offerors to propose on the two one-year option periods, could one conclude that the offerors received equitable treatment in the evaluation of their offers as each offeror should have considered the possibility of 52.217-8 being invoked some time in the future as it is in their respective FSS contracts?

  14. Even assuming that FAR 52.217-8 applies to task orders individually, the use of the option in an order must be announced in the task order solicitation and the option costs must be evaluated during evaluation of quotes or proposals. See GSA's Ordering Guidelines, Item 26:

    Emphasis added. http://www.gsa.gov/p.../200369#options

    I think that Ordering Guideline 26 must be interpreted to mean that 52.217-8 is not automatically included in individual task orders.

    Vern,

    That's a good point. Even though 52.217-8 flows down to the task order, it is the OCO's responsibility to consider it during evaluations and ultimate award, exercising it appropriately in the future. In this particular case, just because 52.217-8 flowed down the OCO didn't take it into consideration at time of evaluations because there was no language in the task order solicitation requesting offerors to submit pricing for those six months and that offers would be evaluated inclusive of that clause. The only language in the task order solicitation was that the offers were evaluated inclusive of the base period and two one-year option periods.

  15. Never mind. I read it wrong. Although I have to say that if management says you don't need a J&A, why fight it. Assuming they're the ones signing your documents!

    Although the clause was incorporated into the task order, it was done so after offers were evaluated and an award made. Executing the clause doesn't take away the fact that this, in my opinion, constitutes a sole source modification because none of the other offerors were given an opportunity to provide pricing and be considered at time of evaluation and award.

    As the solicitation and order were done with regard to FAR Part 8.4 is your reference to "solicitation" with regard to the parent FSS contract or to the "solicitation" for the "task order" that was placed where the clause 52.217-8 was added at a later date to the "task order"? By asking this question I am just wondering if the answer might change if the 52.217-8 clause was in the FSS contract and adding it to the "task order" placed with repsect to FAR Part 8.4 was in fact a duplication of a clause already in the parent FSS?

    I am referencing the task order solicitation, not the parent FSS contract solicitation. However, you raise a good point with regards to 52.217-8 being included in the FSS contract, which it is. The FSS contract contains 52.216-18 ORDERING (OCT 1995) (DEVIATION II -- FEB 2007), which states

    "(

    B) All delivery orders or task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of this contract. In the

    event of conflict between a delivery order or task order and this contract, the contract shall control."

    Therefore, the task order would be subject to 52.217-8 as it is included in the FSS contract. I would presume that one could argue that since 52.217-8 is included in the FSS contract all contractors understand that this clause flows down to their respective task orders and may be unilaterally exercised by the task order Contracting Officers (OCO). Since task orders are viewed as contracts, 52.217-8 could be exercised for this task order independently from the FSS contract even if the FSS contract was extended using 52.217-8. That being said, the OCO didn't need to bilaterally modify the task order including 52.217-8 as it was already included in the task order due to it flowing down from the FSS contract. Have I correctly interpreted your post?

  16. Good Afternoon,

    We are five months away from the end of the final period of performance of a task order issued under FAR Subpart 8.4 and the requesting activity requested that we extend the services for an additional six months while the new procurement is completed (solicitation should be posted in a few weeks). The solicitation this task order was awarded against did not contain clause 52.217-8, however, it was bilaterally added to the task order during the first period of performance. I have argued that extending the services for an additional six months constitutes a sole source procurement and requires a J&A in accordance with FAR Section 8.405-6 and FAR Subpart 6.3 (for open market items) as the clause was not included in the solicitation and considered as a part of the offers or resultant award. I am getting push back from management that a J&A is not necessary and we have the right to extend the services without synopsizing because the clause was bilaterally included in the task order, but I disagree. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

  17. Neither of those articles has any bearing on your situation. None whatsoever. If anyone is thinking of violating Thomson Reuter's copyright by sending copies to you, they had better not say so publicly.

    In light of the fact that it looks like the contractor is going to default, it would be foolhardy to give him progress payments before you decide what to do about that issue.

    I understand the copyright issue. I am in the process of getting the report for our office as we speak. The reason why I referenced those reports is because I found them in the definition of Progress Payment in the Government Contracts Reference Book, 3rd Edition. Thought they were relevant as the Contractor is stating that it cannot pay its subcontractors. The delivery schedule was extended and the Contractor has agreed to the new terms and conditions so the Contractor is no longer in default.

    Thanks.

  18. Good Morning,

    A Contractor was awarded a firm-fixed price delivery order to deliver thousands of commercial radios by 4/30/11. The delivery schedule broke out how many radios would be delivered per month over the course of the delivery order. The COR and Program Office met with the Contractor a few months ago and informed it that a newer version of the radio may be required so the Contractor stopped production of the remaining radios, anticipating a modification to the delivery order. The KO was unaware of the conversations until recently and did not know that the Contractor had stopped production and delivery of the radios. After speaking with the COR and Program Office the KO did not modify the delivery order for the newer radios due to funding restrictions and informed the Contractor that it was to deliver the current radios as scheduled. The Contractor informed the KO that it was impossible to deliver by 4/30/11. Taking into consideration that the COR and Program Office did not have explicit, apparent or implied authority to require the Contractor to stop producing the radios the KO extended the delivery schedule by a few months. The Contractor was also at fault in this situation for not coming to the KO for direction to stop production and was informed so.

    The Contractor is now asking for a progress payment for all of the long lead parts that were purchased to produce the remaining radios. The justification made by the Contractor is that it cannot pay its subcontractors and they will accrue interest from their suppliers. The delivery order did not contain the progress payment clause. The KO has received resistance from management that it would be inappropriate to do so. I did some research and couldn't find anything prohibiting the KO from doing so. I also found a reference to the Cibinic and Nash Reports: Postscript: Timely Payment of Subcontractors (Nov. 1993) and Timely Payment of Subcontractors: Is the Government Responsible (June 1993).

    Thanks for any feedback.

    Prezmil2020

  19. Don,

    You are correct that the scope of work was written broadly.

    Vern,

    Trust me, I agree that if we had to do it all over again the acquisition strategy would be completely different. Nonetheless, this is what we are working with so we are trying to do workarounds while remaining compliant with the rules/regulations/laws.

    As I am fairly new to procurement and have few resources at my disposal and colleagues that I trust, I am interested in learning from more experienced/educated boardmembers so future procurements are awarded/administered properly. I know you have written extensively on the lack of a proper training curriculum for 1102s and I am a product of such an insufficient program, ergo why I am reaching out to those who can offer better insight and advice.

    Prezmil2020

  20. Good Morning,

    My acquisition center awarded in September 2009 a T&M commercial task order against a MAS contract for professional and non-professional services. The task order was awarded with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The requesting activity submits to our office work packages that contain the specific work that is to be performed by the contractor and the funding document(s), which we apply to the task order as a modification. Each work package is nonseverable, the government does not gain anything until the contractor has completed the project. However, each project is independent of each other. When the task order was awarded, it was determined that it was severable because each work package is independent of each other and because the requesting activity could not fully fund a nonseverable task order.

    The questions I have are:

    1. Is the determination of severable or nonseverable based on the individual work that is to be performed (CLINs, work packages, etc.) or is it based on the task order as a whole? If it is based on the task order as a whole, was it correct to determine the task order as severable when each project individually is nonseverable?

    2. If the work package is nonseverable and crosses fiscal years, is it correct to fund the work package via modification with current one year funds as long as the obligation is executed before the funds expire and allow work to continue beyond the POP as long as it doesn't exceed 12 months?

    For example, Task Order ABC was awarded on 9/1/09 with a one-year base period. The contractor begins work on 9/15/09 on a specific nonseverable project that is funded with FY10 two-year funds. On July 1, 2010 the requesting activity wants the contractor to perform another nonseverable project with an estimated POP of 6 months. The requesting activity fully funds this project based on the contractor's estimate with FY10 one-year funds. Do the one-year funds expire for obligation on 9/30/10 and can work no longer be performed against that MIPR beyond 9/30/10?

    Thanks for your input and comments. If further information is necessary, please let me know.

    Prezmil2020

  21. Would anyone know why we ask for a contractor release statement. It basically states the contractor has and/or will be paid x dollars and no further claims will be submitted. Does the FAR require it?

    FAR Subparagraph 4.804-5(a)(14) states:

    4.804-5 Procedures for closing out contract files.

    (a) The contract administration office is responsible for initiating (automated or manual) administrative closeout of the contract after receiving evidence of its physical completion. At the outset of this process, the contract administration office must review the contract funds status and notify the contracting office of any excess funds the contract administration office might deobligate. When complete, the administrative closeout procedures must ensure that?

    (1) Disposition of classified material is completed;

    (2) Final patent report is cleared;

    (3) Final royalty report is cleared;

    (4) There is no outstanding value engineering change proposal;

    (5) Plant clearance report is received;

    (6) Property clearance is received;

    (7) All interim or disallowed costs are settled;

    (8) Price revision is completed;

    (9) Subcontracts are settled by the prime contractor;

    (10) Prior year indirect cost rates are settled;

    (11) Termination docket is completed;

    (12) Contract audit is completed;

    (13) Contractor?s closing statement is completed;

    (14) Contractor?s final invoice has been submitted; and

    (15) Contract funds review is completed and excess funds deobligated.

    That way, the Contracting Officer can perform the completion statement containing the information in FAR Subparagraph 4.804-5( b ) and return excess funds, if any, to the Requesting Activity.

  22. Good Morning,

    A toner cartridge manufactured in China is requested by a non-DoD agency. Market research found several U.S small and large busineses that sell this particular toner cartridge (none are the OEM). The KO wants to use FAR 25.401(a)(3) as his rationale for being compliant with TAA. Is the KO correct?

    I believe that the KO would be violating the Buy American Act. Here is my thought process:

    1. FAR 25.401(a) states three instances when FAR Subpart 25.4 doesn't apply. If FAR Subpart 25.4 doesn't apply than the KO needs to follow FAR Subpart 25.1.

    2. FAR 25.101 states:

    Therfore, as a foreign made supply this subpart applies.

    3. The exception that the KO is using is FAR 25.103(e):

    I don't agree with his rationale as I don't consider a toner cartridge information technology. Am I correct in my logic?

    Thanks.

    Don't know why so many faces appeared in the comment, not my doing. Sorry.

    ----------------------

    Its not your fault. It is a flaw in the board's siftware program. Maybe it will go away when I update the board to the current version

    Bob A.

  23. Good Morning,

    A toner cartridge manufactured in China is requested by a non-DoD agency. Market research found several U.S small and large busineses that sell this particular toner cartridge (none are the OEM). The KO wants to use FAR 25.401(a)(3) as his rationale for being compliant with TAA. Is the KO correct?

    25.401 Exceptions.

    (a) This subpart does not apply to?

    (1) Acquisitions set aside for small businesses;

    (2) Acquisitions of arms, ammunition, or war materials, or purchases indispensable for national security or for national defense purposes;

    (3) Acquisitions of end products for resale;

    I believe that the KO would be violating the Buy American Act. Here is my thought process:

    1. FAR 25.401(a) states three instances when FAR Subpart 25.4 doesn't apply. If FAR Subpart 25.4 doesn't apply than the KO needs to follow FAR Subpart 25.1.

    2. FAR 25.101 states:

    25.101 General.

    (a) The Buy American Act restricts the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products. For manufactured

    end products, the Buy American Act uses a two-part test to define a domestic end product.

    (1) The article must be manufactured in the United States; and

    (2) The cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all the components. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 431, this component test of the Buy American Act has been waived for acquisitions of COTS items (see 12.505(a)).

    (:) The Buy American Act applies to small business set-asides. A manufactured product of a small business concern is a U.S.-made end product, but is not a domestic end product unless it meets the component test in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    © Exceptions that allow the purchase of a foreign end product are listed at 25.103. The unreasonable cost exception is implemented through the use of an evaluation factor applied to low foreign offers that are not eligible offers. The evaluation factor is not used to provide a preference for one foreign offer over another. Evaluation procedures and examples are provided in Subpart 25.5.

    Therfore, as a foreign made supply this subpart applies.

    3. The exception that the KO is using is FAR 25.103(e):

    25.103 Exceptions.

    When one of the following exceptions applies, the contracting officer may acquire a foreign end product without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American Act:

    (a) Public interest. The head of the agency may make a determination that domestic preference would be inconsistent with the public interest. This exception applies when an agency has an agreement with a foreign government that provides a blanket exception to the Buy American Act.

    (:P Nonavailability. The Buy American Act does not apply with respect to articles, materials, or supplies if articles, materials, or supplies of the class or kind to be acquired, either as end items or components, are not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.

    (1) Class determinations.

    (i) A nonavailability determination has been made for the articles listed in 25.104. This determination does not necessarily mean that there is no domestic source for the listed items, but that domestic sources can only meet 50 percent or less of total U.S. Government and nongovernment demand.

    (ii) Before acquisition of an article on the list, the procuring agency is responsible to conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances, including seeking of domestic sources. This applies to acquisition of an article as?

    (A) An end product; or

    (B) A significant component (valued at more than 50 percent of the value of all the components).

    (iii) The determination in paragraph (B)(1)(i) of this section does not apply if the contracting officer learns at any time before the time designated for receipt of bids in sealed bidding or final offers in negotiation that an article on the list is available domestically in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities of a satisfactory quality to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The contracting officer must?

    (A) Ensure that the appropriate Buy American Act provision and clause are included in the solicitation (see 22.1101(a), 22.1101(B), or 25.1102);

    (B) Specify in the solicitation that the article is available domestically and that offerors and contractors may not treat foreign components of the same class or kind as domestic components; and

    © Submit a copy of supporting documentation to the appropriate council identified in 1.201-1, in accordance with agency procedures, for possible removal of the article from the list.

    (2) Individual determinations.

    (i) The head of the contracting activity may make a determination that an article, material, or supply is not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities of a satisfactory quality.

    (ii) If the contracting officer considers that the nonavailability of an article is likely to affect future acquisitions, the contracting officer may submit a copy of the determination and supporting documentation to the appropriate council identified in 1.201-1, in accordance with agency procedures, for possible addition to the list in 25.104.

    (3) A written determination is not required if all of the following conditions are present:

    (i) The acquisition was conducted through use of full and open competition.

    (ii) The acquisition was synopsized in accordance with 5.201.

    (iii) No offer for a domestic end product was received.

    © Unreasonable cost. The contracting officer may determine that the cost of a domestic end product would be unreasonable, in accordance with 25.105 and Subpart 25.5.

    (d) Resale. The contracting officer may purchase foreign end products specifically for commissary resale.

    (e) Information technology that is a commercial item. The restriction on purchasing foreign end products does not apply to the acquisition of information technology that is a commercial item, when using fiscal year 2004 or subsequent fiscal year funds (Section 535(a) of Division F, Title V, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and similar sections in subsequent appropriations acts).

    I don't agree with his rationale as I don't consider a toner cartridge information technology. Am I correct in my logic?

    Thanks.

  24. Good Afternoon,

    I am researching information on how to handle open market items when placing a delivery/task order against a FSS contract when the Contractor has an approved DCMA procurement system.

    FAR 8.402(f) states:

    (f) For administrative convenience, an ordering activity contracting officer may add items not on the Federal Supply Schedule (also referred to as open market items) to a Federal Supply Schedule blanket purchase agreement (BPA) or an individual task or delivery order only if?

    (1) All applicable acquisition regulations pertaining to the purchase of the items not on the Federal Supply Schedule have been followed (e.g., publicizing (Part 5), competition requirements (Part 6), acquisition of commercial items (Part 12), contracting methods (Parts 13, 14, and 15), and small business programs (Part 19));

    (2) The ordering activity contracting officer has determined the price for the items not on the Federal Supply Schedule is fair and reasonable;

    (3) The items are clearly labeled on the order as items not on the Federal Supply Schedule; and

    (4) All clauses applicable to items not on the Federal Supply Schedule are included in the order.

    My question is:

    1. If a Contractor has an approved DCMA procurement system will that satisfy FAR 8.402(f)(1)-(4)? Additionally, can someone explain to me what a DCMA approved procurement system is and how it is used?

    Thanks,

    Prezmil2020

×
×
  • Create New...