Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sjst1

  1. Fara: You make a good point re: the proof of enrollment not being in the FAR clause. The requirement came from our DOE Contracting Officer in 2010. And yes, in some cases we do verify our subs have filed the EEO reports, especially if they have disclosed on their Reps & Certs they have not and have no exemption. Our subcontract clause reads: "Within 30 calendar days after award, the Seller shall demonstrate that it has enrolled as a Federal Contractor in the E-Verify System by providing the Contract Analyst a copy of the Seller's ‘Company Information’ page printed directly from the E-Verify System." Many of our subcontractors have multiple subKs and the Contract Analysts may exclude the above clause from the subK if they perform a search in E-Verify prior to subK award and the sub is enrolled as a FC. No further followup action is required. If the sub is not enrolled or is enrolled but not listed as a FC is when this issue arises. I have just reread our CO Guidance and it includes a link to the E-Verify User Manual for Federal Contractors. On page 14 of this document there is an "Important Note: Only Federal contractors who choose 'Federal Contractor with FAR E-Verify clause' are permitted to verify existing employees." It seems that flowing down the FC requirement is the only way to insure our subs can verify its existing employees who will perform under the federally-funded subcontract.
  2. Don is correct, and yes, there is an option to identify as something other than a FC, however, I am not privy to what the identifiers are w/o going into the registration process. Our subcontracts read that the subs must enroll in E-Verify as a FC and provide proof within 30 days...only after we verify this, is our job as Prime considered complete on this subject. Also, this is what our DOE CO approved as our standard practice. If what the sub's legal counsel believes is true re: (appropriately modified for identification of the parties) [see original post], then we may be in a position to revise our subcontract language and not require the FC designation.
  3. The subcontract is pending completion of negotiations at this time. I know what they are to comply with contractually (if they sign), that is not my question. I am interested in Thanks for your response.
  4. We are a prime contractor with a subcontractor who is registered in E-Verify but refuses to identify as a Federal Contractor (FC) on advice of its legal counsel. FAR 52.222-54(e) of our prime requires us to flow down the clause to our subs and we have specified in our subcontracts that subs must be registered as FC. Our sub's legal counsel argues that the "appropriately modified for identification of the parties" means it has a right to choose its own identity as relates to FC or not. We interpret it to mean substitute "[Our company]" for "Government" or "contract analyst" for "Contracting Officer", etc. (e) Subcontracts. The contractor shall include the requirements of this clause, including this paragraph (e) (appropriately modified for identification of the parties), in each subcontract that— After searching awhile for answers, I contacted DHS from the E-Verify website link to get an answer, but did not leave with any level of confidence in its help desk response. When I asked the help desk if there were a definition of FC on the E-Verify site (or anywhere) as FAR doesn't define, she told me to look in Webster's! Then said that we [prime] can't tell our subs how to register [identify] in E-Verify. I would appreciate knowing if your agencies require subs to register as FC and how you interpret the above red text. Please don't send me to Websters. Thank you.
  5. I would appreciate any opinions regarding the members of a proposal review team (we call them the "Buying Team"). This would be specific to best value source selection (BVSS) solicitations. Do you feel it is appropriate for a manager and their direct report to be members of the same Buying Team? Do you think there are conflict of interest concerns? Coercion or undue influence? I look forward to your opinions. Thank you.
  6. Zidane, I'm partial to the Farsite too because of its great search capabilities and easy navigation. I hope the site did not die or get taken over by an evil doer for ransom ...I've been using https://www.acquisition.gov/ and you can click on the tab "Supplemental Regs" for the DFARs and others. The search capabilities are sorely lacking, if not non-existent.
  7. Don, Thanks for the suggestion. I looked and found nothing that addresses this situation.
  8. Yes, however, we have our own Rep Cert form that has the addition of "If the answer is has not, the Offeror certifies it has less than 50 employees...."
  9. Yes, however, we have our own Rep Cert form that has the addition of "If the answer is has not, the Offeror certifies it has less than 50 employees...."
  10. I would appreciate some input regarding Reps & Certs received from companies that are subsidiaries of large businesses. We received a Rep Cert from a corporation with 27 employees. They are not claiming small business under the NAICS size standard of 500 employees because they are a "wholly owned subsidiary" under a very large business (fine). However, when it comes to answereing "EEO Previous Contracts and Complaince Reports", they answered that they HAVE participated in previous contracts/subcontracts subject to EEO, but have NOT filed compliance reports because it has less than 50 employees. In addition, for Affirmative Action Compliance, they answered "has NOT developed" AA programs because it has not previously had prime contracts or first tier subcontracts amounting to $50K or more when their parent organization clearly has. My question is this: As a wholly owned subsidiary of a company that would be required to file EEO complainace reports and develop AA programs, can this subsidiary exempt itself on the above basis? I can't find anything on the SAM website or in FAR 4.12 which addresses this. Also, would the same be true for affiliates as it would subsidiaries? Thanks for your input.
  11. Then the problem arises when the historical prices paid would reflect the standard price list cost. There is no guarantee that the previous buyer negotiated anything, yet it is a historical price and therefore considered reasonable. Mind you, this is not my practice, but I've seen it done far too often.
  12. FAR 15.404-1( b )(3) states that "The first two techniques [price analysis] af FAR 15.404-1( b )(2) are the preferred techniques." But nowhere can I find the answer to WHY these are preferred. OK, the #1 Adequate price competiton is obvious, but what of #2 Comparison to historical prices paid? Why would that be preferred over any of the other methods such as competitively published price lists or market research? At first I thought maybe #2 was an attempt at streamlining the analysis process (a time saver) but when one has to evaluate the changes in market conditions and such, it can be more time consuming that searching the Internet for same or similar items or looking at a price list. Any ideas?
  • Create New...