Rob

In the suit, National Association of Manufacturers, et al, v. National Labor Relations Board, et al (No. 12-5068, May 7, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requirement that nearly 6,000,000 employers post on their properties and on their websites a “Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act” violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech right not to speak. What is the impact for those contracts with FAR 52.222-40? Can we take the posters down, citing the ruling? Due to the ruling, will the requirements for FAR 52.222-40 precribed at FAR22.1605 require amending or will contractors doing business with the Federal Government just have to bite the bullet and realize that the do not have the freedom of speech right not to speak?

With the recent consolidation of the former "10 key" business systems into "6 key" business systems, does/would an inadequate assessment under one of the old key business system result in a significant deficiency under the one of the new key business systems, i.e. Contractor Accounting Systems? To wit, if one of the Control Objectives under the DCAA IT General System Controls Audit Program is not met, in this example - Contingency Plans, and as a result the contractor's IT System was found to be "inadequate" by DCAA, would the CO/DCMA leap to the "unacceptable" determination? Under DFARS 252.242-7006 Accounting System Administration (a)(3) “Significant deficiency” means a shortcoming in the system that materially affects the ability of officials of the Department of Defense to rely upon information produced by the system that is needed for management purposes Understand the importance of Contingency Plans, however, a lack of Contingency Plan does not appear to impact the DoD's ability to rely upon information produced by the system?

Thanks one and all for your critical thinking and thoughtful responses...another reminder of why WIFCON is my first stop when undertaking research and analysis on Government Contract rules, regulations and accounting.

Discussions in regard to "self-deleting" clauses have been held here. In example, here_2_ help has reminded folks that certain CAS clauses are not self-deleting if the parties mistakenly agree to subject the Contract to CAS, regardless if the Contract be was eligible for CAS exemption. Vern has stated that there is no FAR definition for self-deleting. And my own personal experience is to ensure if a Clause is not appropriate then the Clause should not become a part of the Contract Terms & Conditions. Recently participated in a seminar conducted by a Big 4 accounting firm and a supported by a guest Attorney from a well known and respected law firm (with many Govt Contract practitioners). The presentation highlighed some of the changes from the interim DFARS Business Systems to the final rule, including ....Clarifies that the clause applies only to contracts that are subject to Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). Thus, the clause will be self-deleting if CAS does not apply... QUESTION: If a Contractor enters into a Contract that otherwise would be exempt from CAS and mistakenly does not have CAS Clauses deleted (i.e. the parties agree to subject the Contract CAS), would the Contract be subject to one or more of the Business Systems clauses if they were included in the Contract terms and conditions?

Outstanding and thanks for the insights...

This question is regard to the application of FAR Cost principle 31.205-26 Material Costs on an FFP contract. The CO has cited that an affiliate (subcontractor) under common control proposed efforts to the prime contractor (sister company) must be at cost. The prime contract was an award based on an IFB response and is not subject to the FAR Cost principles. The prime contract does contain both 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data?Modifications, and 52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data?Modifications. However, the affiliates proposed price is less than the Simplified Acquisition threshold and the prime's proposed price including the affiliates proposed price is less than $700,000. Question 1 - In the negotiation of this UCA is the CO correct (what is their justification) in citing 31.205-26(e) as a basis for arbitrarily reducing the affiliates proposed by price by 10% for disallowance of profit? Further background for Question 2 - There is an established practice recognized by the CO, of the affiliate to price their commercial efforts at other than cost, thus meeting the first test under 31.205-26(e), however under this circumstance the UCA did not warrant competition and thus the CO asserts that "adequate price competition" did not occur in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Because the second test under 31.205-26(e) was not met, the affiliates proposed efforts must be at the affiliates cost so goes the logic. Question 2 - If we are stuck with having to comply with 31.205-26, could we not look to FAR 15.403-1©(1)(iii) to demonstrate "adequate price competition?" Thanks in advance for your views here