Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'DFARS'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 8 results

  1. Good morning, I am looking for a way to stay on top of all of the new/changing regulations. Our former lawyer used to subscribe to a bunch of blogs and receive notices as changes were going to occur, but did not share their resources with us before departing the company. What is the best method to stay on top of Laws and regulations? I appreciate any guidance provided. Thank you!
  2. I am being challenged about my interpretation of DFARS 252.215-7002 Cost Estimating System requirements. Wherever I read the word "proposal" in the clause, I'm interpreting it as any and all proposals provided by a contractor. It seems pretty black and white to me. My challenger thinks it only applies to proposals above the TINA threshold. What say you? Does DFARS 252.215-7002 apply to ALL proposals, or only those which require certified cost or pricing data? Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated.
  3. Hi all, Background: Prime has given us a set of instructions on how Data Rights should be asserted/marked, etc for a contract. DFARS 252.227-7013 (instructions on how to mark GPR, LR, etc) . They include a note that we (the sub) have to give permission to remove our proprietary markings for submission the USG. We are asserting limited /unlimited rights on the technical data. From my reading of the clause, I understand the regulations are clear on what can or can not be marked when submitting to the USG. Question: What are the best ways to protect our limited rights data from both the prime/ USG if we have to give permission to the prime to remove our proprietary markings? I've done some research with some mentioning that a specific NDA should be signed to address these things and specifying that the prime must assert the same limited rights statement on their submission as the original. I just wanted to pick everyones' brains and see if others have dealt with this in different manners or if they even see it as an issue? Senior management is pushing that we push back, not give our explicit permission and inform them that they can notify us if any data with limited rights asserted will be needed to submit to the USG and we would give our written permission once evaluating the request. Would you say that's a standard approach as well? Just trying to see if there is an industry standard on how this is addressed. Thanks in advance.
  4. Hello I was reading the above DFARS clause and am struggling to figure out if this would apply to a contract ( I am a subcontractor). The clause starts with: " "The following paragraphs (a) through (e) of this clause do not apply unless the Contractor is subject to the Cost Accounting Standards under 41 U.S.C. chapter 15, as implemented in regulations found at 48 CFR 9903.201-1." The contract would be FFP contract for commercial items. It is my understanding that if commercial items are involved, you are exempt from CAS. This originally would lead me to believe that paragraphs a through e would not apply. I read the rest of the clause to be thorough and ran into paragraph (e) for subcontracts. "The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items, that are for electronic parts or assemblies containing electronic parts, unless the subcontractor is the original manufacturer." I believe I should be reading this as this DFARS clause is applicable to us because our prime is subject to the CAS but we are not required to flow down to our subs. Is this a correct reading? Or..should I be reading this as, this is not applicable to us as I should be reading this as not applicable per the first quoted line? Thank you
  5. Company needs to report a cyber security incident under DFARS 252.204-7011. Reporting is required within 72 hours. I have two questions: Are there penalties or other adverse consequences for late reporting? Before the Company can report, an employee must obtain a DoD-approved medium assurance certificate and this appears to take a couple days. That is a significant delay when you're sprinting toward a 72-hours deadline. Do most companies sign up for this certificate in advance? I did not see reference to it in the NIST SP 800-171. Thanks in advance for any insight! Best, Nena
  6. I am an Army Contracting Officer in charge of the source selection for the production of an Army system. Since it always looks good for the program management folks to reach out to the other services (demonstrates you understand the “big picture”), this has occurred. In this case, the USMC wants to “be part of the procurement.” On the contracting side, it has always been our position to attempt to accommodate where it makes sense and when it does not jeopardize our core objective of meeting the Army mission. Now in the current situation, the participation of the USMC is considerable. Their desired portion/impact has the following characteristics: (1) They would be getting about 55% of the produced systems; (2) They would be providing about 55% of the funding; (3) About 20% of the specifications are not shared between the Army and USMC, so the USMC systems would require adjustment; & (4) A small but critical portion of the USMC systems would require a major configuration change. Some other important factors: The Army has based its decision to move ahead with this acquisition based on the system being COTS or an NDI. This is not a designated joint program and there is no formal agreement between the Army and USMC (no MOA exists). There is also a question as to whether the major system configuration change desired by the USMC falls under COTS or NDI. As an Army contracting officer, I want to do the right thing and best serve the Warfighter (which includes marines). We are very much encouraged to do this. Alternatively, this is not just adding on a few extra systems for the USMC; this is slightly over half of the procurement. I (we) have already sketched out numerous legal/ regulatory pitfalls, etc., but I do not want to influence anyone. What does everyone think about this? What are some ideas on how to best resolve?
  7. Regarding the Department of Defense's new cyber security rule (DFARS 252.204-7008 and -7012), does anyone have any experience submitting a notice to the DoD's Chief Information Officer of any of the prescribed information security standards that your company has not yet implemented? The provisions most relevant to my question are summarized below: 252.204-7008(b) - requires that the security requirements in 204-7012 for all "covered defense information" shall be incorporated into the contract. Those security standards, in turn, implement the standards in NIST SP 800-171. 252.204-7008(c) - requires that by submitting a bid for a DoD contract, the offeror represents that it will implement all security requirements required in 204-7012 no later than 12/31/2017. 252.204-7012(b)(2)(ii)(A) - requires that, for all contracts awarded prior to 10/1/2017, the contractor must notify the DoD's CIO within 30 days of contract award of any of the NIST 800-171 security standards that are/were not implemented at the time of contract award. Does anyone have any experience making this 30-day notice to the DoD CIO? DoD guidance says that the purpose of this notice requirement is solely to give the agency general information on where contractors are in implementing the standards, but I'm somewhat skeptical that this is an "informational only" type of requirement. If anyone has made such a report, I would be curious to hear what DoD said in response and generally how that process went for you.
  8. I would be interested if anyone saw this proposed rule when posted and commented as to it potential impact on the Prime and Subcontractor reporting needs. For one I think it lacks a defined definition of "services" and when I reviewed the CMRA website it would appear that subcontractors would have to have registered within SAM in order to report, which I think brings another issue into account as many "subs" don't want to be primes and as such do not wish to be registered in various government databases. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/05/2014-12810/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-service-contract-reporting-dfars-case-2012-d051 Any thoughts on what this may do to the reporting burden of an already burdensome environment for contractors? For reference: CMRA website - https://afcmra.hqda.pentagon.mil
  • Create New...