Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Yesterday a government agency offered for my company's acceptance a modification adding a clause. (By the way, Block 13B called it an administrative change but Block 13E required contractor signature. One wonders if anybody actually looked at FAR Part 43 or the contract's Changes clause.)

The proposed new clause uses the terms "reimburse" and "reimbursement" although the contract is not cost reimbursement type.

Am I wrong to believe that a government clause, even at agency level, should reflect more care and precision in choice of words?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is lack of effort of the KO, but you'll find that at many agencies, if the clause is an agency specific clause, requires the head of contracts to sign off on any deviation to a provision or clause that does not allow for tailoring. However, this is a bilateral modification, you are more than right to go back to the KO at the agency and let them know you would like this changed before accepting the clause. You could also point out while you are at it that Block 13 should be checked as C or D, that is extremely lax oversite that they didn't even catch that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Yesterday a government agency offered for my company's acceptance a modification adding a clause. (By the way, Block 13B called it an administrative change but Block 13E required contractor signature. One wonders if anybody actually looked at FAR Part 43 or the contract's Changes clause.)

The proposed new clause uses the terms "reimburse" and "reimbursement" although the contract is not cost reimbursement type.

Am I wrong to believe that a government clause, even at agency level, should reflect more care and precision in choice of words?

How are we supposed to respond to that? All clauses should be written with care. But whether the problem in your case is with the clause or the reader is impossible to say. If all you want to do is complain, why not just do it? Why ask for comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked: "Am I wrong to believe that a government clause, even at agency level, should reflect more care and precision in choice of words?"

Answer: Probably not.

Qualification: You didnt identify the clause or provide the wording of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked: "Am I wrong to believe that a government clause, even at agency level, should reflect more care and precision in choice of words?"

Answer: Probably not.

Qualification: You didnt identify the clause or provide the wording of it.

DFARS 252.232-7007, which is prescribed by 232.705-70 for incrementally funded fixed-price contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...