C Culham

?Must a subcontract initially under $25K that is subsequently modified ever be reported?? Yes. Why? A read of the FAR and the clause suggests your interpretation of ?initial? award is off track. Applicability of the reporting requirements applies to ?all contracts with a value of $25,000 or more, except classified contracts and contracts? (Ref: FAR 4.1401(a)). Likewise the clause itself requires reporting ?any modifications to these subcontracts that change previously reported data?. Read together both the FAR and the clause suggests nothing about ?initial? awards and in my view a subcontract of less than $25K that was not reported because of its value that is subsequently modified to above $25K ?must? be reported. Additionally I would suggest that proper contract administration by the Government and prime, especially with regard to modifications of subcontracts, would require changing of the data. The Government has many ways for monitoring this reporting including the responsibility to viewing data reported in fsrs.gov for accuracy and if I were a CO and found a subcontract not reported that I knew was over $25,000 I would direct the prime to report the sub. Other requirements ,such as reporting in esrs.gov of subcontract awards in certain instances, provides another check and balance for both the prime and the Government to report in fsrs.gov properly. ?So, why do not all contractors award subKs for $1 then modify them to the true value, to avoid the reporting requirements? ? Here is a quick list that relate to posts already made in this thread. ALL may or may not be applicable but remember the net for not reporting subcontract awards properly could be widely cast especially if a contractor was knowing trying to ?play? the system as you suggest. Making false statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001; False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. 287; Mail/Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341; 1343; Conspiracy to Defraud Govt., 18 U.S.C. 286; Major Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. 1031; False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3929-33; Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. 51 to 58; and Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act, 28 USC 2514.

You may find this GAO decision of interest with regard to the discussion you are having within your office. Decision - B-302358, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--Automated Commercial Environment Contract, December 27, 2004 Link - http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302358.htm

As an add on to comments already in the thread you may want to consider agency supplements to the FAR that are promulgated as regulation that regard ?Key Personnel? and as Vern notes may be in your IDIQ contract or subsequent order. Many like the Dept of Energy (DEAR) 952.215-70 Key Personnel speak to ?diverting? a key person. One might be wise to indicate in a proposal that the key person will be working on multiple orders if that is your plan to make sure the agency does not believe you are ?diverting? after you get a order if such language is in your particular IDIQ and/or order.

Joel may know but it does not look like the USACE has formally announced the position. Have you contacted the Office of the Chief Counsel to ask the question?

Fara - When I see posts of interest but where I have no hands on knowledge I like to research with my limited research tools. In this case Google. From what I found there is no master list. It appears DoD entities are announcing indiviudally either a specific ombudsman or contact information with no specific name. My best recoomendation is to work up through your specific chain of command to determine your specific contact. Here are some examples of what I found. http://www.dodea.edu/offices/procurement/ http://www.bta.mil/documents/Ombudsman.pdf http://www.schriever.af.mil/50cons/ombudsman.asp

jbardwell - I suggest a full read of 13 CFR 121.404 as it applies to your specific situation. While napolik's response would be generally applicable the time of determination of a firm's size status does change with regard to some specific procurement situations. Here is the link to the CFR.... http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2011/jan...3cfr121.404.htm

In your example Company A is the only one that can answer the question. Company A will know what their GSA schedule contract says and what their Company B distributor contract/agreement says if anything about Company A's GSA schdule contract. There is no set FAR or GSA regulation regarding such a matter.

Joel - I read your question to mean "to quote the FAR Part 19 references to SBA" rather than the FAR Part 9 references. You could but I wonder why? Remember before submitting a firm for a COC the CO must make a determination of nonresponsiblity. In my view to do so the CO is using FAR Part 9 not FAR Part 19. FAR Part 19.6 and the related CFR that supports it is simply SBA's process for in turn telling a CO that while he/she may have determined the firm to be non-repsonsible the SBA is either certifying that the firm is responsible to perform or not. So again the CO's determination is supported by appropriate FAR Part 9 citations and other facts related to the specific firm and the instant procurement. Close read of FAR 19.6 supports that the CO "shall" provide the documentation that they developed to determine that a firm is not responsible. Your question in part is related to my comment that folks in making COC referrals are too general by asking simply for a COC review. Rather they should be specific and state why they believe the firm is not responsilbe, defend that position with facts and then leave it to SBA to determine if they want to certify to the firms responsibility in light of the facts.

KMY ? Following on to Mr. Edward?s suggestions which are right on let me add a little more specific information. Many folks error in simply asking SBA for a COC review. Your request should be specific and pinpoint the area(s) of concern that you would like SBA to review for the COC effort by documenting your reasoning why the firm Appears to lack responsibility (Ref: FAR 19.602-1,specifically (a) and ©(20(vi)). Spinning off of the limited information in the thread your request to SBA might include a justification and documentation that goes something like this, with added details of course. ?The ability of the firm to perform the work is questioned specifically for lack of ability of their accounting system adequacy to accumulate costs under a prospective Government contract type considering the type of work to be performed and/or their ability to obtain the resources to meet this need. This specific concern is with regard to consideration of FAR 9.104-1(e) and FAR 9.104-3(a).?

By posting a response it might give cause for others to chime in as I can not answer your questions specifically. In part because each does lead to detailed discussion. With regard to the topic in general have you taken a look at Volume III, Chapter 13 and Volume IV, Chapter 17 of the "Red Book"? These chapters will give you some insight.

You may want to look at this website.... http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/allapps/cpcbtdlf.htm

What are the type of funds being used....one year, multiple year, or no year?

So what is the reference that your counterparts are using for their belief that "the travel to somewhere outside the United States and it's outlying areas is something that no longer makes it commercially available..."? Just wondering as the FAR definitiions of commercial item and COTS along with application of FAR Part 12 make no reference to inside or outside the US except in application of the Buy American, Trade Agreements, etc. as appropriate.

josmim2002 - You may want to take a look at FAR subpart 42.15 too. Unsure from your post as to whether you are familiar with it, and if not it might give your futher insight into what your relationship to an agency would be for any past performance information that the agency develops, holds on records and uses in the future.

Contracting 1 - This OPM website will give you the basics on procurement of training and use of the SF-182. An intended starting point to do more research on your own with regard to your agency policy, delegations of authority, SCA regulations, etc. The general rule is that in some cases delegation of authority to procure something can be made to someone other than a Contracting Officer and as already noted application of such things as SCA are not applicable. It does get somewhat complicated so I encourage some self research including at least a look see at this website http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbook/lrbsa12.asp#Form

txFed ? First be sure you are correct in your assumption regarding authority of COR?s for your agency. Applicable reference is FAR 1.602-2(d)(1) which does allow agencies to use other than Federal employees as a COR. Your agency FAR supplement or other policy direction should be consulted. Regarding FAR 2.101 I would propose that you are reading it too broadly. COR?s do not, in my experience, have ultimate control over a payment request. All agencies I worked for still require the CO to review the payment request and approve, COR is simply recommending payment by reviewing/submitting payment request to CO. As to your specific question there are several routes one could take to voice a complaint or concern. CO, Agency Office of Inspector General, union, supervisor, etc. All have their different ramifications with my suggestion to start with the CO to understand the agency position on the matter before carrying further. Again I would also research fully to make sure your concern is a valid one.

A little late for the good of the order but in reading the thread I see no mention of FAR Part 11 and specifically FAR 11.401 and FAR 11.404( that require a POP for a construction solicitation/contract, as appropriate. 11.401 General. (a) The time of delivery or performance is an essential contract element and shall be clearly stated in solicitations. Contracting officers shall ensure that delivery or performance schedules are realistic and meet the requirements of the acquisition. Schedules that are unnecessarily short or difficult to attain? (1) Tend to restrict competition, (2) Are inconsistent with small business policies, and (3) May result in higher contract prices. ( Solicitations shall, except when clearly unnecessary, inform bidders or offerors of the basis on which their bids or proposals will be evaluated with respect to time of delivery or performance. © If timely delivery or performance is unusually important to the Government, liquidated damages clauses may be used (see Subpart 11.5). 11.404( Construction. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction contract is contemplated. The clause may be changed to accommodate the issuance of orders under indefinite-delivery contracts. If the completion date is expressed as a specific calendar date, computed on the basis of the contractor receiving the notice to proceed by a certain day, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate I.