Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

Members
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Providing comments and references for educational purposes. No legal advice is given or intended.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,369 profile views
  1. 41 U.S.C. 3307(e)(2)(B) requires a list to implement provisions of law to be included in contracts for the acquisition of end items that are commercial products. I believe 52.212-4 (r) is one of those. There was an emphasis on commercial items in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
  2. Fara, there was a clause, FAR 52.203-1 Officials Not to Benefit, which was deleted at 60 Fed. Reg. 37773 July 21, 1995, as follows: “FAR Case 94–802 originated because Section 6004 of Public Law 103–355 amended 41 U.S.C. 22 by repealing the requirement that ‘‘every contract or agreement’’ shall express the condition that certain officials shall not benefit from the award of that contract or agreement. The Government has expressed that condition in the form of FAR clause 52.203–1. Since there is no longer a statutory requirement to include such a clause in Government contracts, the clause
  3. Intellectual property clauses such as the DFARS clauses you mention generally are focused on data rights. You did not mention any data your were concerned with relating to using the mock assembly parts and you did not indicate there were any other intellectual property rights clauses in your contract. In the event your customer seeks to add such a clause to your contract, to reduce or eliminate risk,you should negotiate to exclude any and all data related to mock assembly parts from the clause especially since the clause attempting to be negotiated was not present. However, the intellectual pr
  4. h2h, I do not believe I said that. If you show me where you think I did, I can provide a response. As practical matter, the contractor is in a difficult business situation. This is a sole source and the contractor has or will have additional work from its customer that requires procurement of the sole source product or services. The sole source supplier is apparently ticked off and has now declined to bid. There are no facts indicating how the contractor plans on obtaining this work. To me, based on the situation, the contractor should consider offering to pay for the initial proposal co
  5. I do think an expectation of payment is well ingrained in the relationship. But payment under these circumstances is not the same to me as payment for a proposal that does not result in contract work award where the RFP states no such cost shall be paid. May some see such payment as an unallowable cost to contractor?
  6. Here 2 help, I may be misunderstanding you. It does not look like an RFP proposal response was made a deliverable under the existing subcontract. This does not seem to be a case where a change notice was issued under the existing subcontract directing that work be performed that is subject to an equitable adjustment proposal. The stated facts do not seem to suggest that the subcontract specifies that this subcontractor shall be compensated for RFP proposals.
  7. I am not aware of any FAR regulation that requires a contractor to pay a potential supplier for proposal preparation costs associated with an RFP when the RFP explicitly says otherwise.
  8. My experience at the major prime, major subcontract level and non-government contract commercial world is to expect that every supplier at every level read its customer's contract. In doing so, flow whatever is required by that contract to be flowed to the next level supplier, and also flow whatever business flowdowns it deems needed to comply with the terms of that contract. This is apart from what I said above about whether or not its customer contract number or ID should be included on the face of or elsewhere in the purchase contract to the next level supplier. In that sense, one thing has
  9. I am not aware of a specific requirement for such notice in a procurement commitment document to a supplier. However, somewhere in your company's finance system, each and every such commitment should be identified to the specific related customer contract number. As a practical matter, entering the applicable customer contract number into a searchable database for the related procurement document, allows finance to accumulate the procurement $ commitment for each customer contract and permits Supplier Management and others to search whenever needed. If your company has some other method that i
  10. From a Contractor standpoint in cost reimbursement contracts, I would question any unilateral change in contract estimated cost by the Government whether it is due to an apparent overrun or underrun, at any time. It could affect the fee payable where there are contract incentives on cost. Also, a downward adjustment in estimated cost where the negotiated contract fee was fixed, could make it look like the effective contractor fee rate was more than negotiated, which might raise concerns that are unwarranted.
  11. What comes to mind for me is FAR 52.215-22 and -23, which targets 70%, indirect cost, profit/fee and total cost, if these clauses are included in the prime contract.
  12. Ok, Vern. No problem. I would like to let readers to decide for themselves or collaborate with others to decide what this means in FAR 52.216-22 (b) "Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders..." I didn't post a related question for you to answer, but I am glad you took the time to respond with the FAR reference. I do believe I am qualified by experience and education to answer your initial post here entitled, "Multiple Award IDIQ Contracts-What are they? I think at what point in formulation they are or are not an enforceable contract IS an answer to your question. I l
  13. I am talking about a contract. When it is a contract. Joel indicated that there is a "Base ID/IQ" MATOC contract (where no Order exists). I am asking whether there is really such a contract or whether it is really a contract only when an Order is issued and accepted.
  14. Joel, is it fair to say that for MATOC (unlike IDIQ Multiple Award Contracts), there is really no "Base ID/IQ contract" for any Contractor because the Government is not required to order anything from any Contractor and no Contractor is required to perform any work, until and unless there is an Order issued to and accepted by a Contractor? In your experience, have Contractors regularly negotiated exceptions to base document(s) before an Order? Thanks.
  15. From a Contractor standpoint, not sure how a single agreement would work for multiple parties. Each Contractor may have different outlooks regarding exceptions to terms and conditions or business matter additions or exceptions. Typically, Contractors prefer not to share their contract language with competitors.
×
×
  • Create New...