Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'MTDC'.
I have a R&D, CR contract with an educational institution. Therefore, it is subject to OMB Circular A-21. A-21 limits to $25,000 the amount of subcontracts that the educational institution can charge F&A costs on. The contractor is using other companies to perform non-commercial work under this contract--sample testing, biological supplies and testing, that kind of thing. My office has taken the position that this is a subcontract, and therefore subject to the $25,000 limitation imposed by A-21. The institution is asserting this to be a 'vendor agreement' (or supplier contract), as they use these services on more than just this one contract, and thinks that they are properly included in the MTDC of the contract. A-21 does not distinguish between vendors and subcontractors. The contractor is relying on the fact that A-133 makes the distinction. We believe that as they thought to distinguish in A-133, the silence in A-21 is intentional and that they would both be subject to the $25,000 restriction in A-21. I know that some of this depends on the work-they are performing direct work/supplies on the contract (as opposed to a general supplier contract for pencils, for example, which someone might grab to make notes on something under the contract). So my questions are: Does the proper application of A-21 differentiate between subcontracts and vendor agreements, specifically for the purposes of G.2? In the scenerio given, would this be considered a vendor or a subcontractor? Which definition of 'vendor' or 'subcontractor' applies? Is there a ruling (GAO case, FAR clause, Court of Federal Claims case, etc) that I could look to? I've found a few things that lightly dance around the issue, but nothing that addresses it directly. The smokier the gun the better. As a side note, we asked the people who established the indirect cost rates to begin with whether they included these 'vendor agreements' in the MTDC. Their response was a mind-blowing 'your guess is as good as ours' (paraphrased). And because it is CR, the contract doesn't stipulate one way or the other (though in the future we will!)