Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
Christie

Clause Question

Recommended Posts

I am reviewing a contract that includes clauses (for example 1052.216-98    TASK ORDERS (DEC 2008)

This appears to be a DTARS Clause when I looked it up on the FARSITE. I'm confused about the use of a 2008 clause in a new contract that I was not expected the inclusion of DTARS Clauses. In addition, I cannot locate the clause on the FARSITE. Advice? There are several 1052 Clauses in the contract. The language in some is very outdated. Suggestions on negotiating these clauses or researching them better?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the contract refer you to a specific website for the clauses and provisions listed?

The FARSite says its DTAR is current as of 12/16/2016, but like you I do not see the clause you reference there. 

Also, the Dept. of Treasury website provides a link the the eCFR where the codified version of the DTAR is also located.  https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/offices/Mgt/Pages/ProcurementPolicy-Regulations.aspx.  I do not see the clause listed there either.  

Like the FAR and other supplements, the month and year stated with the clause simply identifies the date the clause or provision was established or last changed.  Unless you believe the version is incorrect, there is nothing inherently wrong with an older date being listed.  It just means it is an older clause or provision and hasn't been changed.  There are many clauses and provisions in the FAR dated "APR 1984."  Of course here the concern may not be the date, but rather it apparently not being a clause prescribed by the DTAR.

When I look at the other DTAR clauses and provisions most of them end with a -70, 72, 73, etc.  The use of a -7X suffix in an agency supplement to the FAR indicates that the clause or provision is supplementing the FAR.  The DFARS is similar in that its clauses and provisions usually have a -7000, -7001, etc. suffix.  However, supplements to the DFARS and FAR such as the AFFARS use suffixes like -9000 and -9001.  The fact that clause your questioning uses a -9X prefix might indicate that it is a clause prescribed by an agency or bureau policy under the Dept of Treasury separate from the DTAR. 

Also, you said that you are reviewing a contract.  If it is a contract and not a solicitation, the clauses and other terms and conditions in it are already binding on the parties.  If you are reviewing a solicitation and are considering submitting a quote/bid/offer, but are concerned with the content of some clauses or provisions, then I would suggest contacting the contracting officer and expressing your concern and see what their responses is.  As with the FAR, the CO may be required by agency regulation to use certain clauses and provisions and may or may not be able to change the text of them without higher level approval.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×