Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Fara Fasat

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Fara Fasat

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

7,316 profile views
  1. Thanks Vern. A fresh perspective always helps. I see the expansion in how it lists services in one line (A), and then services covered by the SCA on another (B), but I could be reading too much into it.
  2. Thanks Vern. What you said is very true, although I hadn't focused on those issues. I was more concerned with what seemed to be an expansion of the coverage. Whereas the current coverage is specifically limited to SCA- and DBA-covered services, the new EO applies to all services. While there is no definition of "service" in Part 2, Part 37 covers service contracting, and basically a service contract is for the performance of a task rather than the delivery of supplies. It then lists numerous examples, but it seems to cover just about anything that is not for the delivery of supplies. For the p
  3. I want to run this by the forum to get a check on my reading of the new Executive Order issued on April 27, requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to pay a minimum wage of $15 per hour to workers on a range of covered contracts for procuring services and construction. It supersedes the 2014 Obama EO that is implemented at FAR Subpart 22.19. That rule only applies to contracts covered by the Service Contract Act (for services) and the Davis Bacon Act (for construction)(see 22.903, "Applicability"). I read the new EO as applying to all contracts for services, including SCA and DB
  4. Interesting. They got rid of it 25 years ago, and yet it resurfaces only in commercial item contracts.
  5. Glad it helped, although these discussions do often go off on tangents. 🤷‍♂️ I'm still genuinely interested in what a contractor is supposed to comply with in 18 USC 431. Anyone know?
  6. Thanks Vern and Don. Regarding the BAA and TAA certs - I overlooked 52.212-3. I actually keep a separate document with those in it but didn't go back and check it. There are so many bread crumbs to follow when dealing with the FAR that it's easy to forget some, and I did. Here's another thing about 212-3 that's a pain, but what can you do -- the reps and certs in it do not have clause numbers, just the name and text. I added the clause numbers to my reference document to help keep track of what and where. And 212-4(r) - what a mess. Besides the contradictions I pointed out above, the
  7. Vern - it's not a matter of me being "satisfied." People come here for advice and to learn. If you say something needs special approval, they will accept it. As you well know, much time on this forum is spent in correcting inaccuracies. As for 12.302(c), that addresses tailoring. Nobody is talking about tailoring here. 52.245-1 is already prescribed for CI contracts at 45.107(a)(1)(iii). If a CO inserts it, he or she is not tailoring in violation of 12.302 and does not need a waiver to include it. Don - yes there are. Here are a couple: 52.216-31, Time-And-Materials/Labor-Hour Propos
  8. OK. Are you referring to 52.244-6(c)(2), which says the contractor may include other clauses as necessary? The point was simply that including 52.245-1 in a CI subcontract does not seem to require special approval. If it does, then OK, lesson learned. If it doesn't, let's not leave people with the impression it does.
  9. I agree with the above (FP, no GFP, tooling not a deliverable), with one caveat: I don't believe 52.245-1 requires special approval to go in a commercial item contract or subcontract. The prescription at 45.107(a)(1)(iii) states that it shall go in contracts awarded under part 12 where government property is furnished. The clause itself then says (at 52.245-1(b)(3)) that the contractor will insert it in subcontracts under which government property is furnished. It sounds like a straightforward application that doesn't require approval. True, 52.245-1 is not listed in Part 12, but we've se
  10. The dust has settled now, and I have completed my review of the applicability of clauses to CI contracts (larger project, not relevant here), so have a couple observations: 1. I missed the 'notwithstanding' in 12.301. I knew it from way back, but got too wrapped up in the 'all contracts' language. My fault. 2. There can be some honest debates over whether some clauses should or should not apply to CI contracts, as evidenced by the discussion over the gratuities clause. For example, the "Brand Name or Equal" clause, 52.211-6, is not listed in 12.301 and therefore not required in CI s
  11. Thank you for the response, 'beginners' comment notwithstanding. 12.301 trumps everything else. Fine, that's the answer. "All" doesn't mean "all." I'm not the only one who thought it might. Makes me wonder whether there are any other general policy statements that override specific prescriptions.
  12. Maybe I'm missing something simple, so feel free to point out my error. I'm trying to figure out whether the Gratuities clause, 52.203-3, goes in commercial item contracts. the prescription says all contracts over the SAT, but it is not listed in 52.212-5 as a mandatory clause for commercial item contracts, and it is not listed as a CI clause in the FAR Matrix I thought I remembered something from a few years ago that said a clause was not applicable to CI contracts unless the prescription specifically said it did. So I checked a couple others, and they are in 212-5
  13. The current US content test for a domestic product is simple. It just considers the cost of the parts and components you buy to make your product. No labor, no "value-added"; no profit or overhead. I call it a shopping list test. Make a list of all the parts and components you need to buy to make your product; put the US-made parts in one column, all others in another column; add them up. The price of the US column must be greater than the other column (i.e., at least 50% of the total) for your end product to be "domestic." The revision of the FAR to implement Trump's EO did not change t
  14. This sort of falls in the "what happened" category, but Bob can move it to a more appropriate topic if he decides. Anyhow, several years ago we had an extensive discussion about whether a contractor can put a proprietary legend on unlimited rights data. Part 1 is here: http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum9a.htm and Part 2 is here: http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum9b.htm . Even Prof. Nash weighed in. At times the discussion got quite heated, to say the least. I won't say what side anyone was arguing, but the Fed Circuit has now spoken in a Boeing case issued on December 21. It said that a co
  15. Thanks Neil. I think we just have to go with that. There's nothing better coming from the FAR. One would think they would define a term before imposing such draconian measures .... And it's only getting worse. The prohibition is bad enough, but the "use" ban goes into effect in August unless it is repealed or revised before then. It would ban any company from getting government contracts if it simply uses the prohibited equipment in its operations.
  • Create New...