Timbuk2

No arguments here. Agree that Part 13 BPAs are not contracts. FAR States "This Subpart 22.10 applies to all Government contracts, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees..." I also agree that the SCA would apply at the order level only since the order itself is what constitutes a contract.

Yes!!! Thank you very much!!

Thanks for the link...

I have been doing some research on the subject and getting nowhere. DAU AAP had a similar question but didn't really provide a helpful answer. I have looked though the IDIQ ordering guide and the answer to my question is not clear. The FAR is mute on this specific subject. My next step is to contact the KO but first wanted to pose my question here. I appreciate any input/comments you can provide. QUESTION: Can a Task Order include an option period that would need to be exercised after the basic IDIQ has expired?

@govt2310. No problem. Glad I could help. I see it happening within my Agency quite often. KO's introduce Part 15 source selection procedures to a Part 16 or Part 8 requirement. A lot of times making the source selection process more complicated than what it really needs to be. Vern has a very good article on the subject. Good read! http://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm

Page 7 of KBR decision states: "For this task order competition, the agency indicated in the solicitation that exchanges would be in accordance with FAR part 15, RFP at 15, and the agency relied upon decisions interpreting FAR part 15 in defending the protest. Thus, in analyzing the issues relating to the conduct of exchanges here, we have looked to FAR part 15 and the cases interpreting that part." Does that answer your question?

Take a look at Kellog & Brown Root Services, Inc. (B-400614.3) http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/4006143.pdf

Last time I requested a DCAA indirect rate audit it took about 4 years to get it. This is the first time I hear of DCAA just plainly turning customers away. I wish they would have given me that option back then.

Agree with Vern. SSP requirements should be covered by your agency internal policies. Your agency should have some SSP templates and they are fairly easy to put together. My previous agency even had a "streamlined" version of the SSP for actions above SAT but below the old test program threshold.

@Navy_Contracting...Thank you!! Makes sense now.

After reading 29 CFR is clear that the proffesional exemption applies to our action. Thank you all for your responses. I still don't understand why the FAR couldn't just list the proffesional employee exemption under 22.1003-3 and -4 though.

We have a requirement for software engineering support. While trying to determine whether or not the Service Contract Act would apply, I looked at FAR 22.1003-3 and 22.1003-4 and found nothing to justify an exemption. However, 29 CFR § 541.400 states that “Computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers or other similarly skilled workers in the computer field are eligible for exemption as professionals under section 13(a)(1) of the Act and under section 13(a)(17) of the Act” Would you consider our requirement to be exempted base on the Title 29 reference? If so, why is this exception not expressly stated in the FAR? Am I missing something here?

A few years ago I was asked by a vendor to sign their software license agreement. I was apprehensive about it so rather than signing it, the solution at the time was to incorporate the software license agreement terms as a section J attachment. It was a standard commercial agreement that didn't conflict with the contract's terms and conditions. One can argue that contractually incorporating it in the contract serves the same purpose as signing their agreement. And that is probably the case. However, I felt more at ease not having to sign their agreement and the vendor was OK with the incorporation in section J, so it was a win-win.