Freyr Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 Hi all, I was reading through the OASIS Contract (page 52) and came across the section on Clauses. It states: "All “Applicable” and “Required” provisions/clauses set forth in FAR 52.301 automatically flow down to all OASIS task orders based on their specific contract type (e.g. cost, fixed price, etc.), statement of work, competition requirements, commercial or not commercial, and dollar value as of the date the task order solicitation is issued. (Note: Any Applicable and/or Required provisions/clauses that require fill-in information must be provided by the OCO in full text)." Basically, if it is applicable or required then it's included in the subsequent task orders but any fill-ins must be provided by the OCOs. I was wondering what you all thought about this? What about incorporating this into other solicitations? Ie- We issue a full and open solicitation and say all applicable and required provisions/clauses are incorporated into this solicitation, additionally here are the fill-ins that apply. Seems like we'd be skipping a lot of the legwork involved in creating RFQs but also introducing a lot of ambiguity into the situation. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 I think that is a poor approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted March 2, 2021 Report Share Posted March 2, 2021 It doesn't comply with FAR 52.103. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constricting Officer Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 Sounds like laziness to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyr Posted March 3, 2021 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 I had a feeling these would be the responses (I don't disagree)! It's curious to me though that such a large/visible program like OASIS would take this approach, if it's a poor/non-compliant approach then why would they write it like that? Did they just try to be too clever to make it user friendly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted March 3, 2021 Report Share Posted March 3, 2021 8 minutes ago, Freyr said: I had a feeling these would be the responses (I don't disagree)! It's curious to me though that such a large/visible program like OASIS would take this approach, if it's a poor/non-compliant approach then why would they write it like that? Did they just try to be too clever to make it user friendly? Who knows? But, you should probably lower your expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted March 5, 2021 Report Share Posted March 5, 2021 On 3/2/2021 at 1:21 PM, Don Mansfield said: It doesn't comply with FAR 52.103. Maybe they thought it complied with FAR 52.102(d)... "(d) An agency may develop a group listing of provisions and clauses that apply to a specific category of contracts. An agency group listing may be incorporated by reference in solicitations and/or contracts in lieu of citing the provisions and clauses individually, provided the group listing is made available electronically to offerors and prospective contractors." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted March 5, 2021 Report Share Posted March 5, 2021 The FAR is a minefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts