Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

DFAR 252.242-7005 Contractor Business Systems is present within a single award ID/IQ negotiated services RFP / solicitation. This is a Small Business Set Aside under the Army. In addition, DFARS 252.215-7002, Cost Estimating System Requirements, 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration and 252.245-7003, Contractor Property Management System Administration are also present. 

There are no Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) provisions / clauses within the ID/IQ (no 52.230-1, 52.230-2, etc.) The ID/IQ appears not to be a "covered contract." And, whereas, Small Businesses are expressly exempt from all CAS per 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b)(3).

The KO has requested Offerors (through ENs) to supply supporting documentation to meet the requirements of DFARS 252.215-7002 and 252.242-7005.

DFARS 252.242-7005 requires the contract be a "covered contract" (meaning CAS applies) and 252.215-7002 does not apply to small businesses per PGI 215.407-5-70(b)(2) and (c)(1)(iii), "Contracting Officer shall --- Not apply the disclosure, maintenance and review requirements to other than large business contractors."

Does 252.242-7005 and 252.215-7002 apply, given the facts above? If so, how? If not, why not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest108830 said:

 

The KO has requested Offerors (through ENs) to supply supporting documentation to meet the requirements of DFARS 252.215-7002 and 252.242-7005.

 

My response would be as follows:

(1) Bidder is a small business.

(2) -7002 estimating system criteria per paragraph (d) does not apply to bidder because such criteria apply to large businesses per (c).

[ I would include appropriate information regarding your company's estimating system per paragraph (a)].

(3) -7005 is inapplicable to bidder because it is a small business claiming exemption from CAS.

[ I would include here appropriate information regarding your company's accounting system such as those per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP] . Additionally, I would consider include some pertinent information regarding Material Management, Property and Purchasing Systems.] 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Neil Roberts said:

My response would be as follows:

(1) Bidder is a small business.

(2) -7002 estimating system criteria per paragraph (d) does not apply to bidder because such criteria apply to large businesses per (c).

[ I would include appropriate information regarding your company's estimating system per paragraph (a)].

(3) -7005 is inapplicable to bidder because it is a small business claiming exemption from CAS.

[ I would include here appropriate information regarding your company's accounting system such as those per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP] . Additionally, I would consider include some pertinent information regarding Material Management, Property and Purchasing Systems.] 

Bring it up before award and definitely before proposal due date, if possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Guest108830 said:

Does 252.242-7005 and 252.215-7002 apply, given the facts above? If so, how? If not, why not? 

All the individual business system clauses have prescriptions that define when they apply.

As you noted, the -7005 clause prescription states it is only to be include in "covered contracts."

Quote

“Covered contract” means a contract that is subject to the Cost Accounting Standards under 41 U.S.C. chapter 15, as implemented in regulations found at 48 CFR 9903.201-1 (see the FAR Appendix) (10 U.S.C. 2302 note, as amended by section 816 of Public Law 112-81).

Since the contract is a small-business set-aside and small businesses are exempt from CAS, the clause should not have been included. 

Tell the CO now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, here_2_help said:

 

All the individual business system clauses have prescriptions that define when they apply.

As you noted, the -7005 clause prescription states it is only to be include in "covered contracts."

Since the contract is a small-business set-aside and small businesses are exempt from CAS, the clause should not have been included. 

Tell the CO now.

Yes and if they don’t correct it prior to proposal due date, file an immediate protest with GAO. Not after proposal due date. They will throw it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Does 252.242-7005 and 252.215-7002 apply, given the facts above? If so, how? If not, why not? 

Well, they are in the solicitation, and the contracting officer is asking for supporting documentation for these clauses through evaluation notices (ENs).  Have you read the clauses?

Quote

 

DFARS 252.242-7005:

(a) This clause only applies to covered contracts that are subject to the Cost Accounting Standards under 41 U.S.C. chapter 15, as implemented in regulations found at 48 CFR 9903.201-1 (see the FAR Appendix).

 

Quote

 

DFARS 252.215-7002:

(c) Applicability. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of this clause apply if the Contractor is a large business and either - . . .

 

So, it seems to me the clauses will not apply to a small business winner, and since the procurement is a set-aside, any winner will be a small business.

But still, the contracting officer has raised these clauses in ENs.  I think Neil's proposed response is on the right track -- respond to the EN and politely point out that the referenced clauses do not apply to a set-aside procurement or to a small business winner -- but certainly, respond to the EN -- do not ignore it.  Then, if not selected, file a protest on this basis if you think this formed part of the non-selection decision.

The clause at DFARS 252.215-7002 only requires disclosure of the accounting system's details after award.  Maybe the contracting officer is inartfully seeking only a confirmation that the offeror has an acceptable accounting system for responsibility (not evaluation) purposes?  A statement that the offeror has an acceptable accounting system should be easy to provide in response to the EN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point about self-operation of the  clause. I’d still ask for a clarification “why”?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...