weissmana

Thanks for your response Vern.

Exactly my thoughts Navy........ So that is why reading 52.212-1, f(2)(ii) is quite confusing to me and makes me think that there must be a different definition of an "otherwise successful offeror".

Thanks for your response. I am confused as to how we would know if we were the selected awardee if in fact the government has yet to award the contract to anyone as of yet. They would be asking for the time extension so that they can continue to determine how to move forward. I originally thought that "otherwise successful offeror" simply meant that if you had submitted an original offer within the initial timing requirments, then you and/or the other bidders are all "in line for the award" and may propose modifications up until the point the government makes a decision.

Hypthetical Situation. Let's assume the government has requested a 90 extenstion on a recently submitted RFP. We plan on granting the extension yet are considering whether to incentivize the government to make a earlier decision on the contract award by offering a 5% reduction to the prices which currently sit within our previously submitted proposal. Question: Can we modify our proposed offer, which has already been submitted in compliance within the first timetable provided? Question: If so and we make the modified offer, will the gov't be required to notify the other bidders of the proposed modification and the ability to submit additional proposals if they so desire? I found the below reference and was hoping to get insight into what is meant by the wording, "otherwise successful offer"? 52.212-1, f(2)(ii) However, a late modification of an otherwise successful offer, that makes its terms more favorable to the Government, will be considered at any time it is received and may be accepted.

I am in the process of creating an onboarding questionnaire to be provided to companies who request to become an approved government reseller of our commercial products. Does anyone know where I can find any sample forms or links containing specific questions to be asked of the third party to ensure we gather info relating to most operational, financial and regulatory risks? Thanks in advance.

Question removed.

I am sorry Vern as I am confusing myself as well. Currently my company is in a commercial item subcontracting capacity and as such we are exempt from having to create a formalized subcontracting plan. My MGT has indicated that they may want to engage future customers as a commercial item prime contractor and I was wondering if our requirements for formalizing a subcontracting plan would change as a result of doing so....... Is there a commercial item exception for the prime or would we simply determine if we meet the requirements for the formalization of a plan (threshold and further subcontracting opportunities) to determine our requirements as a Prime?

So retread......In our case we (subcontractor) sells a commericial item through a reseller to the government. Their contract exceeds the dollar threshold, has further subcontracting opportunities, obviously, and has 52-219-8 within it. According to what you have written they would be subject to providing a formal subcontracting plan. We, the subcontractor, would be exempt from such requirement......based on the fact that Paragraph (j) of the contract clause at FAR 52.219-9 indicates that subcontracing plans are not required from subcontractors when the prime contract includes the clause at FAR 52.212-5 or when the subcontractor provides a commercial item subject to the clause at FAR 52.244-6 under a prime contract. Sorry for my lack of understanding......but can you confirm?

retread, So I understand that a subcontractor who provides a commercial item is exempt from having to formally prepare a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. What would happen if that subcontractor chose to negotiation directly with the government to supply commercial items and become the prime contractor. Would we then be required to submit a plan or does the commercial exemption still apply? Sorry if I am making little sense....

that article was quite interesting yet left me with more questions regarding how to determine country of origin for direct download software. Anyone have any current info regarding the questions that are required to be asked to determine when substantial transormation has occurred throughout the software product's development lifecycle? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your input!

Retreadfed, I based that statement on the fact that Paragraph (j) of the contract clause at FAR 52.219-9 indicates that subcontracing plans are not required from subcontractors when the prime contract includes the clause at FAR 52.212-5 or when the subcontractor provides a commercial item subject to the clause at FAR 52.244-6 under a prime contract. Please let me know if I am missing something. Thanks so much heretalearn!

I was under the impression that 52-219-8 required flowdown if the subcontract offered additional subcontracting opportunities. Supposing that it does, how can we exemplify that we are making an effort to promote small business concerns?

My company, who primarily deals in subcontracts for commercial items, does not have a sophisticated diversity supplier program. I recognize that our subcontracts do not subject us to developing a small business subcontracting plan, (FAR) clause 52.219-9 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) yet I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to how we should be documenting that we have made our best efforts to comply with (FAR) clause 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns)? Also, is there a risk that the prime and/or gov't end customer can request that we substantiate our small business subcontracting efforts? Thanks in advance.

Yet what if the end customer rejects the primes invoice for labor as it deemed that the labor was not performed in accordance with the designated GSA labor categories. Who would then be liable for such non-compliance, the prime or the subcontractor?