awayforward

Thanks. I agree and think this one needs to be kicked up to our HR /compensation staff.

I am asking if we can charge the Govt for HOLA and COLA & DBA for someone who is on disability (S/T and L/T)? Can the employee remain overseas in his/her housing, etc. while on disability and who pays for it?

We have an employee who lives overseas in country A but also works in country A under our DOD prime contract and is eligible to receive HOLA, COLA & DBA under our CPFF contract. The employee has gone on short term disability and will soon go on long term disability. Can the Govt. still be invoiced for HOLA and COLA & DBA during both short and long term disability absences? or should we, as the prime contractor, pay these costs directly (and not expect reimbursement from the govt?). How should these allowances be handled and is there any specific guidance for these circumstances ?

Thanks for the response. No, we are the prime and folks in our HR dept. and maybe "compliance" are indicating that we would have to issue sub mods to make them (the subs) aware of this EEO-1 reporting responsibility;However, I don't feel that Contracts has to be involved in this. The subs should be aware of the EEO responsibilities.

Are prime contractors obligated to inform its subcontractors (via subcontract mods for example) to file their EEO-1 reports? Should we expect Agencies to modify prime contracts to address EEO-1 reporting requirements?

Ji, Sorry about dropping off. Yes, you are correct. the clause 52-204-15 was added via mod to the IDIQ. I now understand this reporting has nothing to do with the Service Contract Act 52.222-41 and the lack of Wage Determinations. Thank you for the clarification and insight.

For the first time, my company has recently been requested in accordance with FAIR (FAR 4.1703) to report labor value in SAM.gov under various contracts that contain the Services Contract Act FAR clause. One IDIQ in particular contains the Services Contract Far clause, but there was never any Wage Determinations included in the IDIQ or task orders. The legacy administration of this contract does not reveal that anyone ever questioned why there were no WD's. The contract is for the provision of IT professional services, and there have been some high dollar task orders over the years under this IDIQ. I am inclined to make the CO aware that no WD's were ever included in the contract, to question him/her whether it was appropriate to have the SCA Far clause in the contract (almost 10 years ago) considering the nature of the services provided, and perhaps do a mod to remove the SCA. It seems odd that report our labor dollars in the system if no WD's were included or likely flowed down to any subs.? Again, this is a legacy contract with quite a bit of history, and we are trying to figure out the best path forward.

If a solicitation states "Past performance information will not be considered for predecessor companies, proposed subcontractors or key personnel", does this mean if a proposing prime acquired company A and company B, the proposing prime cannot use company A &B's past performance? Why would the government exclude the past performance of subs. including newly acquired entities if it is relevant?

We are a sub to a prime under a IDIQ prime. We were proposed as a sub. on a delivery order by the prime. We proposed T&M rates. We are working under a letter subcontract and are about sign the IDIQ sub and task order once the sub package is finalized. The prime is insisting on us completing a certificate of current cost and pricing data. Our Pricing manager is insisting we don't need to sign a certificate for a T&M task order. Who is correct?

Retreadfed- You have everything wrong. The scenario is about to small business subs. under a prime, and what notification is required by the me regarding the assignment or novation of contracts of the 1 small business sub to another small business sub. I think the solid advice is to inform the CO as a courtesy even though it is not a requirement.

I agree with advising the Contracting Officer of the scenario. At a minimum, some notice is required.

Perhaps, I need to elaborate on this less than ideal situation. The change in ownership will likely involve a change in identity. Small company A performing under the IDIQ prime is a staffing company that only wants to concentrate on certain types of business (state and commercial). Company A would like to sell its federal side of the business to a separate and distinct small women owned company B that also has been approved to work under the same IDIQ prime. The principals of both companies are related but I don't think this matters, or does it (a rather typical SBA scenario?) Is the prime contractor obligated to inform the Govt that Company A sold its federal business to Company B (already approved as a subcontractor under the prime also?). Company A will remain as a corporate entity but not pursuing federal work. Clear as mud?

Sounds like we would have to get consent for the new owner. Related question: what if a subcontractor requests the prime to consent to assign its sub to a 3rd party. Would we have to seek approval from the Govt to assign a sub?

Yes.

When a subcontractor notifies a prime of a change in ownership. What steps are required of the prime to the Govt? Is notice required? novation? or can we simply modified the approved sub to reflect the change in ownership? Do we have to get consent for the new owner/company?