Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Megan G

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Megan G

  1. ji20874: FAR 52.232-7 was carefully constructed where references to "Contractor" mean "Seller" and the terms "Government Contracting Officer", "Government" or "Contracting Officer" mean "Buyer". The structure recommended by here_2_help seems to best align with the requirements of the clause, unless in conjunction with your most recent company we cannot have different billable rates for identical labor categories. Each subcontractor will be providing the same technical labor (engineering support and analysis) but specific to their components. The rates we've received from subcontractors
  2. Thank you ji20874 for the response, it helped answer an underlying question. As the subcontractor, I was concerned I had started down a rabbit hole in applying FAR principles to this relationship - I had. I moved beyond the RFP flowdowns and into generic T&M FAR research. The RFP however includes 52.232-7. As the subcontractor, am I required to separate our rates and the rates of our subcontractors (52.232-7(a)(1)) or may we provide a blended labor rate? If the rates are separate, would it be permissible to add a fixed fee onto our subcontractors' rates? I've made note that if we hav
  3. We are a subcontractor for a multi-year FFP DoD contract. Our Prime was awarded an Order under Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA). The award to the Prime was non-competitive, as the Order supports a pre-existing Contract for which the Prime, ourselves and our subcontractors are the only sources with the requisite knowledge, experience, and technical expertise to provide the required supplies and services under the Order. The Prime has asked for the T&M proposal for our participation. We have historically avoided T&M efforts but the proposal scope is too broad for us and our suppliers to
  4. Correct, the rest of this section is (what I consider) standard Prime - Subcontractor flowdown: The clauses set forth below, and in effect on the date of the Order, are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of the Order. In all such clauses, the term "Contractor" shall mean "Seller," the term "Contract" shall mean the "Order," and the term "Government Contracting Officer" (or equivalent phrases), shall mean "Buyer" as applicable; except that in those clauses conferring patent and data rights to the Government, the term "Government" or "Contracting Officer" retains its literal m
  5. Both are correct, however @Retreadfed brings the task at hand back into focus. Our Data Assertions were provided in accordance with 252.227-7017 and included as an Exhibit in our subcontract(s). The communication of Final Determination was from the Prime, and the Prime made the request that we update the deliverables to remove the restrictive legends. The contracts further provide that all data which we asserted to be proprietary and that is necessary for the performance shall be protected in accordance with 252.227-7013. The relative flowdown clauses are prefaced with the language: exc
  6. First, thank you for the reference to DFARS 227.7103-12(b)(2)(ii). With respect to 252.227-7013(h)(1), I had thought to mention earlier the deliverables with the restrictive markings had been accepted by the Prime, and presumably the Government. As I read the language above, this would permit the Government to revisit acceptance, but, at least in my situation, it wouldn't direct the CO to DFARS 227.7103-14(b)(3). If the marks were nonconforming 227.7103-14(b)(3) may apply. Although the final determination notice didn't specify, it's my assumption that in a Government Challenge, if the Govern
  7. @here_2_help thanks for your review and feedback. The question is less about the impact the Unlimited Rights determination has on the asserted data rights, and more on our obligation as a subcontractor to provide drawing updates. Based on the date the notice of final determination was provided, we are outside the window (90 days) to provide notice of an intent to appeal. With respect to the drawing updates, @Jacques I am looking at the language at paragraph (h)(1) of the "Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items" clause at DFARS 252.227-7013. With the current drawing approval pro
  8. We are a subcontractor for several DoD contracts related to a specific program. For each subcontract over the past eight years, we have asserted the same data rights to certain technical data. Our first assertion was made and provided to the Prime in July 2012. In August 2015, we received notification of a Government Challenge pursuant to 252.227-7037. In November 2019, we received notification of Final Determination in which the Government took the position of Unlimited Rights. In accordance with 252.227-7013, there are no authorized marking legends for Unlimited Rights. With
  • Create New...