Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'FAR 52.232-5'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • 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
    • Section 809 Panel
  • Federal Contracting: A New Beginning
    • The Competition in Contracting Act

Blogs

  • 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

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 1 result

  1. FFP construction contract in SC. Competitive IFB, SDVOSB set-aside. Question on behalf of the prime contractor. The government is required to promptly reimburse a contractor the cost of performance and payment bond premiums per FAR 52.232-5(g). Bonding companies generally require prime contractors also obtain bonds from subcontractors for subcontracts over a certain threshold (usually $250k for small-midsize companies). The prime contractor has several instances of where the subcontractor bond premium was reimbursed by the government along with the prime’s own bond premium AND several instances (from the same agency no less) where the pay application was denied on the basis of the subcontractor’s bond not being a government requirement. In my opinion, the subcontractor bond (required by the bonding company of the prime contractor) qualifies as “coinsurance” as stated in FAR 52.232-5(g) because without the subcontractor bond, the bond premium rate applied to the prime (for the entire value of the contract) would have been higher. Is anyone aware of any case history or regulatory references that substantiate or refute my position? Thanks in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...