C Culham

Not so fast and not so true. With absolutely no apologies any CO who feels that they can just put SCA in a contract and have no responsibility for administration of the requirements is not fulfilling their duty pursuant to the guidance of the FAR. It may not be specifically stated in FAR part 22 like it is for D-B but it sure is provided for in the guiding principles. And any senior CO who advocates such with "I am okay with that" is an equal to the OP's client. Let me pick just one example. In applying ji20874's suggestion it would seem that it is okay for a CO to just sit around

Well I am left slightly confused as now the scenario changes by my read. In the OP it was benefits now it appears that hourly wage is the issue along with classification. I tend to defer to ji20874's comments regarding the new info. Let me support his comment with this.... 29 CFR 541.2 Job titles insufficient. A job title alone is insufficient to establish the exempt status of an employee. The exempt or nonexempt status of any particular employee must be determined on the basis of whether the employee's salary and duties meet the requirements of the regulations in this part. H

Well I could imagine the contractor getting away with it until at some point a wise employee complains to the DOL. In a quick view DOL's investigation and resulting enforcement action could include payment of the fringe, fines or possibly both. I am not sure how far they might reach back to previous contracts to determine a contractors misgivings but my bet whatever statute of limitations applies they would pursue to the extent allowed. Consider a real life story. Contractor pays the required hourly wage and inflates it to include the fringe. Using your numbers lets say wage is $15.

Some may not see it as FAR compliant but it has happened. This memorandum comes to mind (and was mentioned in a very recent discussion on another topic) and if read completely one could argue that it provides a doorway to something close to the example you have provided being awarded as a commercial item. Since the memorandum, and as proposed by it, there could be agency guidance that is more clarifying, or even case law, but in truth I did not go searching to determine if any existed. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/procurement/far/far_part12.pdf

I might give you centuries and possibly decades but to imply the service industry, other than A-E, has no interest in safe and functional escapes me. Back to my point, and while the OP was an attempt to create thoughts with regard to creation of guiding statute from the ground up, I offered selection based on qualifications and then get to price as a dynamic that has credibility beyond A-E. After all it seems it is practiced to some extent in GSA FSS and even more so in sole source 8(a) procurements. Of course I am at risk in mentioning either as conversation will lead to criticism o

Well the Brooks Act and some good lobbying. No doubt other details but does it really matter? So one professional here that would help lobby for the new world! I am in!

I just wonder in whose eyes. My optimistic view is that most go through life effectively negotiating all kinds of stuff in their personal lives, yet there is no confidence that those same after requiring thousands of hours can not do it for the federal government if given the opportunity to do so via a more common sense approach. My concern is how much would stuff like this increase? https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwa/pr/clarkston-business-owner-and-federal-government-contracting-officer-indicted-bribery Yes! I will probably get chastised for suggesting another pilot program ( an

Also FAR Part 53.236-1..... OF 347 (Rev.2/2012), Order for Supplies or Services. OF 347, prescribed in 53.213(f) (or an approved agency form), may be used for contracts under the simplified acquisition threshold for- (1) Construction, alteration, or repair; or (2) Dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements, as specified in 36.701(b)

@CyndiG - Without knowledge of the specifics of the entire contract and noting comments so far my thoughts. If a service contract, if a clause that allows in-process inspection and if a performance-based contract that carried information regarding what the governments performance assessment (inspection) activities would be and the request to "get insight" was not alluded to as part of those activities or in the contract as a whole you might have more emphasis to discuss/negotiate the want of the government. At a minimum even with consideration of a possible clause like that already

To exemplify what with regard to commercial items?

In my read of your post this jumped out. I did have a hard time distinguishing if this was the reason for you being uncomfortable or you reason is the EUP in general. I like you would be uncomfortable if there was an attempt to use EUP processes for a buy where EUP is not applicable. Noted I would use the thoughts of Don Mansfield's post to further explore the non-EUP concern. This said and noting that EUP for agencies has been around for several years I believe most of your details in your numbered considerations/questions have been addressed. At the hazard of repeating the same tho

Intended as so (FAR 1.602). In reality it depends. On what? The agency. My view is based on experiences during my career and anecdotally through discussions with current CO's where it still depends on what agency the CO is with. And the CO. A rabbit hole that is often discussed throughout WIFCON Forum threads.

I picked the quotes not to call each out but just to note the thoughts. My two quick thoughts are 1) Who has the onus - contractor or government? and; 2) What can be divulged. The onus? From the high view there is not much a person could not find out about an agencies budget and intended procurements. Many agencies have public facing websites that will offer all kinds of information. Likewise I suspect (little rusty here) that asking for agency acquisition plans is probably allowed and done so with little implication of FOIA. Like "Can you send me your advance acquisition plan, p

More curious to me is what comes next? I have followed with interest but admittedly not a full grasp of the legal back and forth. The rule as I understand had strong implications with regard to the gig economy. With it now withdrawn it appears the head scratching and legal interpretations of independent contractor versus that of employee will continue to be in controversary, especially for FLSA. FLSA has been fairly absent as the basis for court actions of independent contractor/employee for the large gigs such as Uber with matters solved, again as I understand, in private arbitration.

Without detail I now wonder if mixed contracts apply - 13 CFR 125.6 (b)