Retreadfed

I don't understand your situation. You state that you "graduated" to a large business. Were you an 8(a) participant that graduated from that program? Is FAR 52.219-28 in your contract? If it is, were you required by the terms of that clause to recertify your size status? If you were, what was the basis of the recertification? Was the requirement to submit a subcontracting plan accomplished by including FAR 52.219-9 in your contract? Was the effective date of the modification requiring a plan the effective date of your contract or some later date?

You mean like Eleanor Spector in her guidance on prompt payment?

Having worked for DCAA for 15 years I can tell you that it is a very inward looking agency. Unless things have changed drastically, it refuses to allow its auditors to receive procurement training from anyone outside DCAA. Thus, DCAA perpetuates its own views of procurement policy, including interpretations of the FAR. In this regard, 52.232-16 never uses the term allowable, neither does the SF 1442 nor the instructions for that form. Instead, the 1442 and its instructions use the term "eligible."

Thanks for the response. This is what I was thinking would be the situation. It was the use of the word "allowable" that had me spun up since to me, allowable denotes application of the cost principles in FAR Part 31 while 52.232-16 does not incorporate the cost principles.

Vern, I'm confused by this statement. Can you clarify it for me. Are you saying that as work progresses on the UCA, that the contractor can bill the government for its incurred allowable costs? I see that if FAR 52.216-26 is in the UCA, however, if the definitized contract is anticipated to be FFP, 52.216-26 should not be in the UCA.

Why have we allowed ancillary systems to be designed so they cause more work for contracting officers that may not be necessary or consistent with contract terms?

Birdsong did not say the contract is being overrun. If that were the case a realignment would not be necessary. Just because a CLIN is being overrun does not automatically mean there has to be a realignment of funds to fund that overrun.

Why?

To add to the generalization, in my experience, it is the larger contractors that have their own subcontract clauses. Many of these clauses are derivations of FAR or FAR supplement clauses. Some times these variations go further than the tweaks H2H described. At the same time, some of the clauses are FAR clauses with only those tweaks. Medium sized contractors and small businesses have a tendency to merely incorporate clauses from the prime contract without thinking as to whether the clause is applicable to the subcontractor or whether the "clause" is even a clause and not a solicitation provision.

I think you also need to look at the reverse of this question. The US has Status of Forces Agreements with several countries. Some of these SOFAs contain provisions about hiring local nationals to work on US government contracts that are performed in the host country.

The operative word in my post was "may." But in regard to your question, while some contractors develop their own subcontract clauses, many use FAR or agency supplement clauses for subcontracts. This is because they do not see any reason to reinvent the wheel when a clause already exists that they can use.

If this is a subcontract under a DoD prime contract, the prime contract likely contains DFARS 252.244-7001(c) states in part that an acceptable purchasing system shall "Ensure that all applicable purchase orders and subcontracts contain all flowdown clauses, including terms and conditions and any other clauses needed to carry out the requirements of the prime contract." IAW this clause the prime contractor is required to flow down clauses that by their express terms require them to be included in specified subcontracts. In addition, the prime is required to include clauses in the subcontract that are necessary for the prime contractor to carry out its obligations under the prime contract. That means that there may be FAR/DFARS clauses in the subcontract that are not included in the prime contract. For example, if the prime contract is a cost reimbursement contract but the subcontract is a firm fixed price contract, there may be several clauses in the subcontract, such as a payments clause, that are not in the prime contract. In my opinion, if a prime contractor merely includes all FAR clauses from the prime contract in all subcontracts that is an example of professional laziness.

Thanks, Carl

What is the Logan decision?

Have you read the CR to see what it says about obligation of funds, if anything?