Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'subcontractors'.
Found 5 results
-
Hello All: I have an Contractor under an AE IDIQ that is asking if they could add two subcontractors to the list of agreed upon subs. FAR 52.244-2 Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants states that the Contractor shall obtain CO consent before making any substitution for the subcontractors, associates, or consultants that were agreed to during negotiations. However, I feel this doesn't cover adding additional subs. Can anyone point me in the direction of more information regarding this matter? Thanks! -
Under FAR Clause 52.222-11 - Subcontracts (Labor Standards) , does the actual reporting requirements stop at the Prime, or at the contracting officer? Fixed Price Construction IDIQ. All contractors/subcontractors are SB. As an example: Prime uses one subcontractor. The subcontractor (acts like a prime and) subcontracts all of the actual work. The Prime does not interpret 52.222-11 to mean that all of the document generation requirements under this clause get sent to the CO; rather, submittals like Payroll, Form 1413, Apprentice Certifications and such stop at the Prime. Prime believes they only need to submit said documents on the first tier subcontractor. Initially I read the clause and disagreed; it seemed an easy way around Federal labor laws if this were the case. After reading through para (d)(1) and (d)(2) of the clause a few more times, what seemed clear at first no longer seems so. Para (d)(2) states that the Contractor shall deliver an updated 1413 for additional subcontracts, which seems to imply that additional lower tier subcontractors do not generate a new 1413 -they just get added onto the current one. After thinking about this some more, I think it's a poorly worded and confusing clause. I think the intent may be that a subcontractor should read (d)(1) as if he were the Contractor being referred to in the clause, and therefore the requirements apply to himself/herself as well. I want to say that in (d)(2), any subsequently awarded lower tier subcontracts get updated on the 1413 for that subcontractor. In turn, the lower tier subcontractors have to repeat this process until no more subcontracts occur. Can anyone weigh in?
-
We have a mechanical subcontractor that is a consistent problem and I was wondering if we can ban them from campus. In the latest two incidents, we had drawings that showed chilled water being connected to chillers. There was a domestic water connection alongside the chilled water. The customer states the mechanical sub knows not connect chilled water to the chillers because the chemicals damage the unit. They do this for living. Does the installer have any obligation to notify someone before installing equipment improperly because there was an error in the drawing? The contractor has also created several floods around campus due to faulty installation and improperly supporting pipes. They are qualified on paper when reviewing proposals, but their craftsmanship and professionalism are abysmal. Any thoughts?
-
I was recently courtesy copied on an email from my COR and noticed that communications are going back and forth between the COR and the sub-contractor statuses and approving documentation. The prime contractor is also CCd on the emails as well. I would prefer that the communications were between the COR and the prime, but I know contracting does not operate on feelings. I wanted to know if I am being too ridged or maybe it is better business practices to have information flow from the prime to the government and vice versa. Thanks in advance
-
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!)