Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
Old-Dog

CO's decision for the prime not to use subcontractor

Recommended Posts

Can a CO require a Prime not to purchase services from a specific subcontractor?

George, can you provide more detail about the contract type and if it is awarded or in negotiations? You dont have to explain the specifics about the sub but I'm trying to figure out where the contract is after - before award - construction - services - etc. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd way to word the question -- "require not to purchase".

The answer is yes, as long as the prohibition does not violate the law or breach the contract.

Legitimate reasons might be: debarment or suspension; lack of a necessary clearance; some other cause of nonresponsibility, such as poor past performance or inadequate facilities; an unacceptable product or technical proposal, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd way to word the question -- "require not to purchase".

The answer is yes, as long as the prohibition does not violate the law or breach the contract.

Legitimate reasons might be: debarment or suspension; lack of a necessary clearance; some other cause of nonresponsibility, such as poor past performance or inadequate facilities; an unacceptable product or technical proposal, etc.

I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subcontract is for professional services.The subcontractor has been performing the same services for approximately 7 years. The prime is satisfied with their work and the work had been reviewed annually by the government without any issues. The subcontractor is not suspended or debarred.

I'm not sure but I think this is result of personality conflicts between the government manager and the subcontractor's management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subcontract is for professional services.The subcontractor has been performing the same services for approximately 7 years. The prime is satisfied with their work and the work had been reviewed annually by the government without any issues. The subcontractor is not suspended or debarred.

I'm not sure but I think this is result of personality conflicts between the government manager and the subcontractor's management.

So, this is under an existing service contract, not one that is being negotiated for renewal? And there are no "performance" issues? Hmm.

I don't personally know what rights the Government would have, without consequences, to require removal of a subcontractor on an on-going service contract , who is meeting the contract's performance and safety requirements and doesn't fall under the general examples described above or other similar circumstances. Maybe someone else knows how.

If this is part of a negotiation of a new contract, I think that the KO may object to a proposed subcontractor or personnel. That is my opinion and I would probably recommend conferring with Office of Counsel.

Under an on-going construction contract, the KO can require removal of objectionable EMPLOYEES under the Material and Workmanship clause. However, my lawyers have considered it to be a stretch to require a removal of a subcontracted FIRM if there were no performance, safety or other legal issues (e.g., see above). If the prime and the sub are meeting all the contract requirements on an on-going construction contract, I don't know how the Government could require removal of a subcontractor without possible consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×