Retreadfed Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 At one time, the T&M payments clause required withholding of $50,000 relating to the cost of labor hours under such contracts. I have a recollection that there was an ASBCA (?) decision holding that the withholding only applied at the contract level and not the task order level under IDIQ contracts. Unfortunately, the only mechanism I have for doing research on ASBCA decisions is the service provided by GWU. The search engine has been removed from that site. Does anyone have any information on this decision that my somewhat erratic memory says exists? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napolik Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 At one time, the T&M payments clause required withholding of $50,000 relating to the cost of labor hours under such contracts. I have a recollection that there was an ASBCA (?) decision holding that the withholding only applied at the contract level and not the task order level under IDIQ contracts. Unfortunately, the only mechanism I have for doing research on ASBCA decisions is the service provided by GWU. The search engine has been removed from that site. Does anyone have any information on this decision that my somewhat erratic memory says exists?Thanks. I cannot find an ASBCA decision, but I did find the following in the July 27, 2005 Federal Register dealing with FAR Case 2004-003: Quote Task Order Versus Entire Contract 2. Comment: A respondent stated that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether the $50,000 ceiling on withholding applies to an individual task or to an entire contract. It recommended the proposed rule be clarified to identify the basis for application of the ceiling. The respondent added that it had previously recommended in an audit report that the $50,000 ceiling be applied to each order where orders are closed separately. The respondent's recommendation is based on the belief that the clarification will assist contracting officers in performing their jobs. Councils' response: The Councils agree that it would assist both contractors and the Government if the proposed rule were clarified as to whether the withhold ceiling applies to an entire contract or to individual orders. Such a clarification would reduce any possible confusion by either party as to the applicability of the ceiling and thus remove the potential for disagreements. The Councils agree that the withhold ceiling applies to the entire contract. Therefore, the Councils have revised the guidance at FAR 32.111(a)(7)(iii) and the clause at FAR 52.232-7(a)(2) to clarify that the withhold ceiling applies to the total contract. Unquote The source is here: http://regulations.justia.com/view/18937/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 The current clause provides for withholding in paragraph (a)(7), which says that the total amount withheld "for the contract" shall not exceed $50,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted May 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 I cannot find an ASBCA decision, but I did find the following in the July 27, 2005 Federal Register dealing with FAR Case 2004-003:Quote Task Order Versus Entire Contract 2. Comment: A respondent stated that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether the $50,000 ceiling on withholding applies to an individual task or to an entire contract. It recommended the proposed rule be clarified to identify the basis for application of the ceiling. The respondent added that it had previously recommended in an audit report that the $50,000 ceiling be applied to each order where orders are closed separately. The respondent's recommendation is based on the belief that the clarification will assist contracting officers in performing their jobs. Councils' response: The Councils agree that it would assist both contractors and the Government if the proposed rule were clarified as to whether the withhold ceiling applies to an entire contract or to individual orders. Such a clarification would reduce any possible confusion by either party as to the applicability of the ceiling and thus remove the potential for disagreements. The Councils agree that the withhold ceiling applies to the entire contract. Therefore, the Councils have revised the guidance at FAR 32.111(a)(7)(iii) and the clause at FAR 52.232-7(a)(2) to clarify that the withhold ceiling applies to the total contract. Unquote The source is here: http://regulations.justia.com/view/18937/. Thanks. I was aware of this language from the FR. However, my memory was that there was a decision to the same effect that predated this change. They say as we age, memory is the second thing to go. I forgot what the first is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 Thanks. I was aware of this language from the FR. However, my memory was that there was a decision to the same effect that predated this change. They say as we age, memory is the second thing to go. I forgot what the first is. Retread, given the language of the clause, why do you need the ASBCA decision? By the way, I did a quick search and could not find any such decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts