C Culham

They changed it becasue the current FAR did not make sense (bold added)! "43.000 This part prescribes policies and procedures for preparing and processing contract modifications for all types of contracts including construction and architect-engineer contracts. It does not apply to- (a)Orders for supplies or services not otherwise changing the terms of contracts or agreements (e.g., delivery orders under indefinite-delivery contracts);..."

@Retreadfed I have a pretty good grasp on where the SOL may not apply. A subject for a different discussion. And, a reason an agency may have an approach different than the general unless 6 year retention. This said I will stick to my statement that you quoted unless I am misinformed and the general 6 years retention has another basis.

Long time ago I was pretty expert at file retention. Today not so much but I have always understood that the 6 year is based on the Disputes Act statute of limitations. This said retaining lots of stuff is much easier in this day of e-storage but there are a few catches in my view..... Why retain if there is no anticipated use? Do you really think retaining a usual janitorial contract has any use after the 6 year period? I will not even attempt to calculate but it seems infinite storage is at no cost. After all I have to pay for cloud storage that my phone can't hold or extending at a cost what my computer at home needs to store. There are permanent designations for such things as "as-builts'" etc. connected to construction one should not confuse a "contract" with such documents. I would note that the document I linked provides a distinction between "permanent" and "temporary". And related to the cost matter not to be forgotten is the cost to convert or update e-file. Maybe todays world of e-documents makes for easy as builts but I have to think someone someplace is somehow doing the effort and not like they use to in construction shack with red lines on a drawing like the olden days? In very casual conversations with folks today that deal with the matter this crops up - the e-file filing system and designation. Simple example sometimes I have trouble finding something I e-filed (document, photo, email, etc.). In some cases I can imagine it is like trying to find Waldo. Yes storage electronically is a great advancement with the advancemet coming with its own considerations but I wonder if retention period is not really one of them. Post Script - @ContractingGuy I know you said "my agency" but again with my recollection engaged it seemed that back in the day the agencies I worked for had a records specialist somewhere within the organziation. Just a thought is "my agency" the acquisition stove pipe or have you reached beyond to find help to answer your questions? You might want to check this link out if you have not - https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/agency#:~:text=NARA%20has%20oversight%20authority%20for,%2C%20College%20Park%2C%20MD%2020740.

Maybe this will help. https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/pdf/dfr-2000.pdf My read retain 6 years either at agency or authorized retention facility. Schedule for destruction or other action (donate) but NARA authorizes.

@OuterSpace I am going to guess that you have read your "OTA subcontract" and have found no language in it to address your question. If my guess is correct the company that issued the OTA subcontract is the only entity that can answer your question. Additional thought - You use the term "OTA subcontract", are you sure you mean to make this distinction? Knowing this may or may not change my response.

@OuterSpace I am going to guess that you have read your "OTA subcontract" and have found no language in it to address your question. If my guess is correct the company that issued the OTA subcontract is the only entity that can answer your question. Additional thought - You use the term "OTA subcontract", are you sure you mean to make this distinction? Knowing this may or may not change my response.

@1102fun Here you go this may help and might even be a source for you. Some of the language in the link suggests why GSA, and I would think an agency could view, the need as a service rather than a real estate transaction. U.S. General Services Administra...Commercial coworkingTo keep up with rapidly changing federal workplace needs, we are tapping into the private sector’s business model for coworking spaces. Federal agencies can now also take advantage of shared workspace

The result is a great start but I would suggest Claude's output still needs refinement. By example (without any market research) I wonder if 52.212-1 and 52.212-4 could be tailored for the specific procurement. And I still wonder, again with no market research, why not GSA or Ability One.

A great article that I hope gains traction. My random thoughts when reading..... FAA, along with the Bonneville Power Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority mimic to a large extent the FAR. Why? Sound premise or not but statute and executive order seeps into them all. "Acquisition workforce" seems to have a narrow definition for the purpose of the article. By example "CO's and specialists". I have long felt that the people part extends to others most especially the contracting officer representative (COR). My view is based on the view that with the declining 1102 workforce more dependence is placed on the COR in getting stuff done from cradle to grace. Yes, cradle to grave as the COR is the immediate face to programs and management during project planning and consideration and then becomes the immediate face to the same internal folks and the contractor during contract performance. A COR is not necessarily the lynch pin to making it all work better but I would suggest that when discussing "acquisition workforce" COR education and development should not be overlooked. And in addition to @Motorcity rcity 's comment consider that CLP can in fact be many things in fact by rough count 10 options beyond the classroom stuff. Those that control the purse strings not only demand that extra management approval that Motorcity speaks of and even attempting to get credit for some OJT or attending a seminar is a cumbersome effort that usually has to go all the way to the top. Those that have no taste for fighting for their own advocacy just resign themselves to plodding through the classes as it is the easy route.

(To help a little further.....) Is a clause and is found here - https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm Paragraph (a) of the clause states this - "(a) This clause applies to both contracts subject to area prevailing wage determinations and contracts subject to collective bargaining agreements."

The original poster should not make this assumption but rather clarify with the CO. Further per this quote that the original poster provided - I would suggest strongly that it is not wording that applies to the solicitation but to a contract.

Another thought. Both the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the FFA regulation and guidance are a spin off of the US Department of Labor Regulations regarding the Service Contract Act. In this regard I also encourage you to refer to and read the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the Act. I think you will find it supports the language in the FAA guidance, again supporting that the CO should not be referring to a contract clause for an action that is with regard to post award correction if in fact award has not occurred. I might add if award has occurred and the agency did not include the appropriate Agreement and/or determination then there is process in the regulation and FAA guidance as well. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-A/part-4

While I am not real familiar with FAA procurement policy I believe that the CO is off base. First and foremost how can a contract clause apply if there is not award of a contract as you have stated "prior to award". By comparison and in the world of the Federal Acquisition Regulations the CO would be faced in such a situation with the option of delaying the award by amending the solicitation to revise the wage determination or cancelling all together and reissueing the solicitation with the new wage detemination. Also the CO's position seems to be off base with the stated "Procurement Guidance" of the FAA which in my view should be the reference the CO should be using and not a contract clause for a contract yet to be awarded. The FAA Guidance can be found at the following 2 links which I encourage to read for yourself. The first is the link to the full guidance and the second is the link to that dealing with labor. https://fast.faa.gov/PPG_Procurement_Guidance.cfm https://fast.faa.gov/docs/procurementGuidance/guidanceT3.6.2.pdf In the end I believe there should be more detailed conversation with the CO......good luck.

"Going to", have they not already via the deviation route? It would appear at this point in time that some agencies have directed their workforce to adopt the deviations going forward. So if you work for GSA you now refer to the FAR, the multiple agency deviations that exist, the rewrite deviations, possibly some individual deviations, the GSAM and agency policy. It just seems the rush to change via the deviation route might just be starting the chaos as opposed to simply rewriting and issuing a "new" FAR at some future time. And not that it is a big deal in the context of FAR definitions but I do find it interesting where the current FAR Part 1 has 21 "must"s and 69 "shall"s and the deviation has 41 "must"s and 2 "shall"s. One could conclude I guess that the imperative is now less but the shift to must over shall is of note. This shift seems to continue to the deviation for Parts 10 and 34 as well.

I would pose that this is the same situation as the legislative process that created new and wonderous acquisition statute, the codification of any such legislation into the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the extended resulting policy of the multitude of agency's since 1984.