Scorpimouse

DGOETZ - Great information! Thank you very much for your thorough and thoughtful inputs. I will continue my research in each of the areas and links you mentioned.

Jamaal - Good thoughts thanks. This isn't a "repair" or "maintenance" contract in that sense, so that exception wouldn't apply. It's more like a BOS contract where they "operate and maintain" the base, and by base I mean a small remote Air Force Station. I also wouldn't consider the property I'm talking about "incidental" as I believe the FAR defines that term. Some things certainly are "incidental" and those will be provided as such ( tables, chairs, and large ovens and walk-in coolers in the industrial kitchen, etc.) The stuff we're talking about here is things like shop stock (nuts and bolts, connectors, etc.), tools, extension cords, small appliances, spools of cable and wire, etc. I believe FIAR requires EDA be the central repository, but I don't know for sure - I'm definitely still researching that stuff. However I do know the Air Force has chosen to implement it by attaching the property to the contract and uploading to EDA. I believe property that is used in performance of a contract can only be assigned to one contract at a time, so there shouldn't be a case where multiple contracts are attaching the same property, resulting in a double-counting situation.

Vern - Thanks for the pointers. I'll keep them in mind as I continue my research. Retreadfed - Thanks for the advice; good stuff. This is the kind of helpful and useful information I knew this site would provide (from everybody). I'll check into the Army regs. It's been my experience that the AF usually has a slightly different, slightly more annoying way of doing things (but in a good way of course ). To everybody - I appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration. You have been very helpful to me. Thanks again. Any more ideas keep 'em coming!

Vern, Normally I would agree with you, and that's how it's been done in the past. The reason for the change is the Financial Improvement Audit Readiness (FIAR) requirements that basically says ALL Government property used on contracts needs to be accounted for in one central location for audit purposes. The mechanism they are using for that is to attach all property to the contract as GFP and upload it into EDA. It would be a violation of FIAR to have property that is just "there to be used" but not officially tracked anywhere or issued. So, in light of FIAR, the only option is to put ALL contract-related Government property into EDA via the official GFP process. However, it's not the intent of the FAR that ALL such property be actually issued as GFP, so the only way around it I see is to get it off our books. The path we propose is a way to get it off our books while at the same time getting value back for the taxpayers. I don't pretend to have all the answers. Maybe I'm missing something in all of this or have misunderstood something. If so, I welcome correction.

BowtechDan - Yes, for the most part what you've stated is accurate. But one thing I want to emphasize is that this property isn't "junk." For the most part it's low-dollar equipment but of the type that will be very useful in the performance of the contract. Also, it's property that is *not* used by the Government for Government purposes, but is used by the contractor for contract purposes. Part of what we're thinking of doing is allowing the Government personnel on site to reutilize whatever of this property they want for their own purposes, and then whatever is left over will be turned over (or "sold") to the contractor (that way we don't lose control of a piece of property it turns out we really needed for our own Government purpose). here_2_help - Yes, you have the idea exactly right. We are thinking exactly of having a separate CLIN that will be "negatively priced." We do have lists and pictures that will included in a bidder's library, and we'll also have a sight visit so prospective offerors can lay eyes-on for themselves. The idea is to have this negatively priced "credit CLIN" be included in the their Phase-In proposal, which will not be evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Price so as not to give the incumbent an advantage. We're trying to come up with a way that, as you said, makes sense for the taxpayers, while at the same time makes sense for the contractor and the Government. We think this might work. Thank you all for your very valuable and helpful feedback. I love this site for just this reason - very knowledgeable people are willing to share their different experiences and point out something I may not have thought of. So thanks again and I welcome any and all feedback or other ideas from anybody and everybody else!

BowtechDan, Ah I'm tracking you now. I misunderstood your question. Let me make a distinction. There are two "types" of property on this contract and that I'm talking about. The first is that property that *is* and *should* be "GFP." This is the category that you're addressing, and yes the contract is square on that front - the clauses are in the contract, the property is attached to the contract, accounted for, inventoried, and transferred IAW the FAR and FIAR. The second category, which my question pertains to, is the "other" Government property on site. This is the stuff that has accumulated over the years and does not fit the FAR criteria to be provided as "Government-Furnished Property." As for fiduciary responsibility, this property is not officially accounted for anywhere in the Air Force except for the lists maintained on site - it's not in any database. It's the type of miscellaneous property I've described above. So the way I see it, in light of FIAR, we have basically two options. 1) If it stays as Government property, it will have to be issued as "GFP" and attached accordingly. However, I don't believe it's the intent of the FAR to provide all this miscellaneous property as GFP. 2) The other option is to clean up our books by transferring title to the contractor, by having them bid on it, effectively reducing the price of the contract. The way I see it, everybody wins - we are FIAR compliant, the books are clean, we have met the intent of the FAR, the contractor gains useful equipment, and the Government gets value back for the equipment it is giving up.

Okay I have a moment so I will try to answer all the questions. Don – Why not? First, there is a lot of property on site that *will* be issued as GFP. Items that are mission-specific, special tooling, TMDE equipment, benchstock and equipment on CA/CRL lists will be provided as GFP. But we also have a lot of “supplemental” items – things like buckets of nuts and bolts, tools, coils of copper piping, small appliances like vacuums, and other things that aren’t accounted for on any official equipment list. These supplemental items do not, in my view, clear the thresholds in FAR 45.102 (a) and (b) which states: (a) Contractors are ordinarily required to furnish all property necessary to perform Government contracts. (b) Contracting officers shall provide property to contractors only when it is clearly demonstrated— (1) To be in the Government’s best interest; (2) That the overall benefit to the acquisition significantly outweighs the increased cost of administration, including ultimate property disposal; (3) That providing the property does not substantially increase the Government’s assumption of risk; and (4) That Government requirements cannot otherwise be met. ji20874 – Yes, thank you – the idea would be do something similar, only on a somewhat larger scale. metteec – Thanks for the guidance. Yes, I am aware of it and have reviewed it (I admit, I may not have it all digested correctly). Based on my reading, it seems to be geared towards property that is: 1) officially accounted for, 2) is no longer needed, and 3) is wanted to be gotten rid of. In our case we don’t meet any of those three conditions. Based on my reading, we may fall into the “exchange/sale” authority in 102-39, which states, “ ‘Exchange/sale’ means to exchange or sell non-excess, non-surplus personal property and apply the exchange allowance or proceeds of sale in whole or in part payment for the acquisition of similar property.” Only instead of “exchanging” property for property, we would basically be exchanging property for a service. What do you think? here_2_help – This contract has been ongoing for decades, so over the years the site has accumulated various items. Way back in the day, some of the equipment was bought directly by the Air Force and that Government property remains on site to this day. For the most part though, the Government acquired title because the incumbent contractor over the years bought items using a Cost Reimbursable CLIN so title rests with the Government. The winning contractor does not need to acquire title (although that is what my question pertains to – we would like them to). They could simply take possession of the property for their use without acquiring title to it, but one of the things that is driving this question is the new Financial Improvement Act Reporting (FIAR) requirements. FIAR came about (in part) because the DoD did not have a good accounting of their property. So based on my understanding, FIAR says that ALL Government property that is used on contracts must be officially accounted for, which means it needs to be documented and uploaded in EDA. But as I said to Don (see above) I think providing all this property in that manner goes against the intent of the FAR because the Government still has ultimate responsibility to acquire, manage, track, maintain and dispose of it. BowtechDan – Currently the Government ultimately has fiduciary responsibility.

Thank you everybody for your input. I'm running around trying to figure this stuff out on the fly between other work, so I don't have time to give comprehensive answers to the questions, but as soon as I have a decent opportunity I will answer the questions and provide more information. Thanks again to each of you!

We are currently re-competing a contract for Operation and Maintenance of a remote Air Force Station. The Government owns a lot of property at the site that will be very useful to the winning contractor in performance of the contract (hand tools, maintenance equipment, shop stock, etc.). It doesn't make sense to provide this property as "Government Furnished Property" because it doesn't clear the hurdles of FAR 45.102. But it also doesn't make sense to turn this property in to DRMO or to scrap it, only to have the winning contractor purchase much of this same equipment all over again. So my question is, can we provide listings of all this property and have contractors bid in a "discount" to be able to take possession of it all? In other words, we would basically be selling the Government property to the winning contractor, the price of which would just be deducted from their overall bid. Is this a viable strategy? Does anybody have any experience doing something like this?

How do COs comply with a final rule published in the Federal Register that has not yet been incorporated into the FAR? Do we wait to comply with the final rule until the FAR provides implementation guidance? Or do we "figure out" how to implement in the interim? BACKGROUND: SBA currently has a proposed rule in the Federal Register that revises 13 CFR 125.6, "Limitations on Subcontracting." If this becomes a final rule, what is codified in FAR 52.219-14 will be out of date until the FAR is updated. So in that interim period (if I'm thinking about this right), technically, a small business could propose in a way that is in compliance with the new final rule, but not in compliance with the FAR clause. What is a CO to do in such cases? I have found several areas of discussion that *almost* answer the question. For example, on an FAQ page for a final rule for the DOL it says, "The Final Rule becomes effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register... and it applies to covered contracts entered into or modified on or after that date. Updating the FAR is a separate process... Regardless of that separate FAR process, this Final Rule applies to all contracts entered into or modified on or after the effective date of the Final Rule." I have also found this discussion here on Wifcon: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/175-far-trumps-sba-regs/ These discussions are helpful, but they don't quite answer the exact question I have. How, if at all, are COs supposed to treat a final rule that is not yet incorporated into the FAR? If, as the DOL page suggests, that regardless of the FAR process, COs are to comply 120 days after the effective date of the rule, how do we do that if there is a clause involved? Do we get with legal and draft an interim clause to be included in Section H or something? Maybe I'm just thinking about this all wrong. Any help anyone could provide will be very much appreciated. Thanks.