Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cdrls'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • Whitcomb, Selinsky PC GovCON Law


  • Community Calendar

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 2 results

  1. Hi, It seems we have found ourselves in a situation where a CDRL is calling out an additional requirement that the Government wants but it is not stated in the PWS. Specifically, a longer duration of service agreements. The PWS does not include a specific requirement for "service agreements" only for "product support", which for Product Support has an end date stated through final DD250 in the PWS. The CDRL calls out "service agreements" with an additional 2 years after final DD250. There is no stated order of precedence, and both documents are called out as being incorporated into the contract, with the CDRL being listed first as an Exhibit and the PWS as an Attachment. My questions is: Can the Contractor be held accountable to deliver the additional duration of service agreements as listed in the CDRL if its not specifically called out as a requirement in the PWS or another area of the Contract? CDRL: DI-CMAN-81121, DATA ITEM DESCRIPTION: BASELINE DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT
  2. I'm having a disagreement with my government customer about CDRL deliverables, review periods, and approvals. Block 8 of the 1423 is Blank. Block 16 of the 1423 states that the government will have 30 days to review the data submittal and respond with comments and the contractor will have 20 days to revise after receipt of the government's comments. The data item was submitted to the customer. The transmission included DID, SOW, CLIN, and CDRL references as well as the listed government review period. The government confirmed receipt of the data item. On day 40 I sent the government a notification that the review period has expired, the date of expiration, and notification that the Data submittal was now presumed approved by the contractor as we received no comments back on the item by the government. The government says that this assumption is incorrect as the 1423 says nothing about presuming approval. I argue that the document gives a number of days for government approval. Once that time has expired, unless contractor has received notification that the review period would need to be extended, then the government has not contractual right to additional comments. Realistically, we will likely allow additional comments, however, it's my argument that technically the window of opportunity has closed on that one. The COR asked under what authority and I really couldn't find anything that specifically addressed approvals of this nature except that Dod 50101.12 states that the dates are contractual obligations. Also the instructions for DD form 1423 seem to indicate the same. Any opinions on this would be appreciated.
  • Create New...