novice

Does anyone know if the requirement for MMAS is being used by agencies other than DoD such as Space Command or NASA , and how were the percentages determined? A bigger question is can MRP be accepted as a substitute - appears not. But with the impetus to consider commercial contracting practices especially use of voluntary consensus standards and leading commercialq practices why not?

This is a very broad question based on some assumptions by me as follows: 1. FAR 52.232-16 and FAR 52.232-32 read essentially the same especially in regards to who owns the residual property once the financing payments have been fully liquidated (paid back); 2. DoD Class Deviation 2019-O0011 (performance-based payments no longer capped by the amount of incurred costs) I can find no reciprocal provision for progress payments; 3. DoD Class Deviation 2020-O0010 (COVID response) upping the small business to 95% and 90% for large business - again, I can find no similar modification for PBP. My question is what other differences are there between progress payments versus performance based payments including contract administration requirements. Thanks for your consideration of this question.

Thanks Don - I know that I have stated it in abstract terms but what concerns me is how/why the following is the case: FAR 52.215-8 - Order of Precedence - Uniform Contract Format As prescribed in 15.209(h), insert the following clause: Order of Precedence - Uniform Contract Format (OCT 1997) Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) The Schedule (excluding the specifications). (b) Representations and other instructions. (c) Contract clauses. (d) Other documents, exhibits, and attachments. (e) The specifications. - Notice that, excepting schedule, offeror’s representations rank above contract clauses, other documents, exhibits, attachments and the specifications. EVEN ABOVE CONTRACT CLAUSES Why is the order of precedence provision have this hierarchy? Your statement that "some clauses are worded such that the applicability of certain requirements are dependent on how a rep or cert was completed", would you kindly provide some You succinctly identify my question in that I am seeking advice on how can reps and certs matter/ can have application/influence on post-award issues? thanks

I would appreciate the opportunity to begin a general discussion of the significance of a contractor's representations and certifications throughout the whole contract management process (both pre-award and post award). Let me start off with a few brief summary of a few relevant FAR provisions: 1. Contracting officers are required to incorporate Section K by reference in the contract [FAR 15.204-1(b)]. 2. For noncommercial acquisitions, FAR 52.204-19, Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications, informs contractors that the “representations and certifications, including those completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM), are incorporated by reference into the contract.” For acquisitions of commercial items see 52.212-4(v) (commercial contracts). 3. 4.1200 Scope - This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for requiring submission and maintenance of representations and certifications via the System for Award Management (SAM) to- (a) Eliminate the administrative burden for contractors of submitting the same information to various contracting offices; (b) Establish a common source for this information to procurement offices across the Government; and (c) Incorporate by reference the contractor’s representations and certifications in the awarded contract. 4. FAR 52.215-8 - Order of Precedence - Uniform Contract Format As prescribed in 15.209(h), insert the following clause: Order of Precedence - Uniform Contract Format (OCT 1997) Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) The Schedule (excluding the specifications). (b) Representations and other instructions. (c) Contract clauses. (d) Other documents, exhibits, and attachments. (e) The specifications. - Notice that, excepting schedule, offeror’s representations rank above contract clauses, other documents, exhibits, attachments and the specifications. EVEN ABOVE CONTRACT CLAUSES I would appreciate discussing how significant reps and certs are in affecting other contract administrative actions such as in-scope vs out of scope determinations, ambiguities (patent or latent), defects (patent or latent)? Do they play a role in interpreting what are voluntary consensus standards and industry leading practices? See FAR part 45.103. Specifically are such reps and certs a way of binding the govt to a given interpretation if a claim of dispute should arise. Do the subject matter experts in this forum see a linkages to other contract requirements/issues beyond the what I have suggested above? Thanks

Thank you to all!

First, I would like to thank Bob Antonio for maintaining this site. It is extremely helpful! By a internet search in a famous search engine, I discovered a post on WIFCON on August 12, 2016 previously asking the same questions as I am. In response, contributors offered two links neither of which currently work: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_default http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/docs/FAR_Operating_Guide_July_2015.pdf From my research, I did discover two documents: the 2015 FAR Operating Guide and the 2011 FAR Drafting Guide. I also have been told that the FAR Council in the spring of each year, advertises/solicits FAR changes. Is this true as I could find no online verification. My proposed change involves both the FAR and the corresponding DFARS provision. Any advice on how to get my proposed change into the correct hands would be greatly appreciated.

Recently, I was informed that DoD as well as all the other government agencies as a matter of policy are NOT including FAR 52.245-1 Alternate I Full Risk of Loss (FRoL) and instead affording contractors the privilege of Limited Risk of Loss (LRoL) per the basic (regular) provision of FAR 52.245-1(h) irrespective of contract type or method of procurement. My question is to what extent is FAR 52.245-1 Alt 1 being used? My interpretation of FAR 45.104 is for non-DoD agencies, is that Alt I is required in (1) those non-competitive proposal negotiated fixed-price contracts under the current 2M threshold; (2) competitive negotiated fixed-price contracts demonstrating adequate price competition as provided for in FAR 15.403-1 (c) (A) and (3) fixed-price contracts awarded by sealed bid procedures. DoD partially resolved the issue in DFARS 245.104 which states that "In addition to the contract types listed at FAR 45.104, contractors are not held liable for loss of Government property under negotiated fixed-price contracts awarded on a basis other than submission of certified cost or pricing data. DFARS 245.107 (1)(ii) reaffirms this by stating "For negotiated fixed-price contracts awarded on a basis other than submission of certified cost or pricing data for which Government property is provided, use the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, without its Alternate I." Because of these DFARS provisions, for DoD , ONLY firm-fixed price contracts awarded by sealed bidding would require Alternate I. Of course, Full Risk of loss applies if the government chooses to contractors limited risk of loss per the other provisions of FAR 52.245-1. I have diligently searched for this “policy” and have found nothing. I am sure that contractors are not complaining but it is not in accord with the clear language of the FAR and DFARS. Clearly there is a major inconsistency for DoD versus other agencies in whether to use Alternate I. Any guidance or direction to appropriate sources would be greatly appreciated! Suggestions as to point of contact are also appreciated. This research is for a manuscript to be submitted to a professional journal. Thanks.