Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'commercial items'.

  • 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
    • The Good, The Bad, the Ugly
    • 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 6 results

  1. 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 as mandatory for CI contracts, but CI contracts are not called out in the prescription. For example, 52.204-23 (the Kaspersky ban) is listed in 212-5, but the prescription simply says all solicitations and contracts. So is 203-3 just another disconnect in the FAR? Should it be added to 212-5 to be consistent with the "all" prescription? Should the prescription say "except solicitations and contacts for commercial items?
  2. Hello, I work for a sub who does business with a prime. We sell commercial item A,B,C, D. All parts sold to prime have minor modifications customarily available in the marketplace. We have sold Items A, B,C(w/ minor mods) to the prime in the past asserting commerciality and the Prime accepted our parts. Prime comes back a few years later with a purchase order for A,B,C and D. We fill out our commercial item justification for Part D but Prime has now come back and rejected A,B,C. So my question is.. once accepted as a commercial item by the Prime, can they now reject our commerciality for Parts A,B,C? The parts (w/ minor mods) are only sold to the Prime but are all catalog parts for our company (w/o the minor modifications). I guess I've never seen a prime suddenly state that parts which they bought in the past are now not commercial items. I'm sorry if I'm unclear. If I need to provide clarification, I will. Thank you.
  3. FPDS reporting of actions above SAP but under FAR 13.5 commercial procedures - how are these reported in FPDS? I'm sure the answer is buried somewhere either in FAR or FPDS material, but throwing it out as time is of the essence.... gotta love the SCI reporting time of year!
  4. My company produces a commercial item that it will supply to the DoD through its Prime Contractor as a first tier sub. As, we will make slight modifications to our item for the purposes of integration into the Prime's product for sale to the government, the Prime Contractor wants to negotiate rights to technical data, specifically asking for exclusivity "on behalf of the government" that we will not further market the item. I have asked the Prime if the government has specifically requested exclusivity. I didn't get a straight answer (a we want to protect the govts rights) but I assume as I did when the request was made that the answer is no. Prime confirmed that the modification is being funded under the USG contract and not by their own R&D. It seems to me that the push for exclusivity is coming from the Prime and not from the government. Either way I have a few questions: 1. If I'm understanding things correctly, we can grant to the government standard commercial rights under DFARS 252.227-7015 for our existing IP and government purpose rights under 252.227-7013. Is my assumption correct? 2. I believe that as the modification is minor, does not significantly alter the nongovernmental function or essential physical characteristic of the item or change the purpose of the process and therefore does not affect the commerciality of our product? 3. If commerciality is in tact can I assert -7015 rights for the entire product? (I don't think so. But if we can...) 4. We will grant the prime a limited use license for fulfillment of the requirements under the existing government contract. Any suggestions on language for this clause? 5. Are we required to assert data rights for our commercial IP? I'm not finding a requirement to do so but think it may be a good idea to eliminate confusion. Thoughts?
  5. I am helping a colleague put together a solicitation for a commercial IDIQ solicitation. Specifically, I have been tasked with putting together the clauses and provisions for the solicitation. FAR Subpart 12.3 is somewhat misleading (or, I am not reading it correctly, which is entirely possible) on the subject of using clauses and provisions other than the five 52.212 clauses/provisions. I am fully aware that clauses such as 52.216-19 and -22 can and should apply; however, I'm fuzzy on the other clauses that could apply (that is, "required when applicable") in an IDIQ situation. If this topic has been addressed somewhere other than this designated forum, please feel free to post the link and delete this topic. Thank you!
  6. 1. Background: Government issues ID/IQ MAC contract for fixed price COTS equipment. The government specifies by performance criteria the types, quantities of equipment, and incidental support services, if any. Equipment descriptions are in terms of performance based specifications, brand name or equal, or brand name only requirements. The contract does not contain an OCI clause. · Deal Registration. Based on an Industry practice called “deal registration,” awardees on this ID/IQ MAC can "lock in" lowest pricing with a vendor before RFQ release as/if they gain knowledge of the requirement. The registration by its nature is very specific and is registered pre-RFQ. It guarantees the lowest price for that RFQ regardless of any existing agreement (e.g., reseller agreement). Information on the internet abounds on this industry practice. Provided below is one general description found at: http://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/definition/deal-registration "Deal registration is a feature of some vendors' channel programs in which a channel partner, often a VAR (value-added reseller) or SI (systems integrator), informs the vendor about a lead and is given priority for it. Once a lead is registered with a vendor, the partner usually has a set period of time to close the deal. During this time other channel members, or even the vendor's own sales team, are not allowed to negotiate a similar deal with that lead. Not all vendors offer deal registration, and some vendors offer it only to certain channel partners. Deal registration is usually put in place to lower the chance of channel conflict -- a situation in which channel partners have to compete against one another or the vendor's internal sales department. With a deal registration program in place, partners can work with a client without having to worry about another company trying to offer the same product at a lower price. Some vendors also offer to help partners in the selling cycle, and deal registration lowers the chance of the vendor stealing the lead once the partner has brought them into the discussion." Dell’s published deal registration criteria includes the following: "Deal Registration criteria for Dell includes the following: The deal is not the subject of an RFP, or similar tender process, that has been published; provided, however, that before such RFP, or similar tender process, has been published, the Partner shall be eligible to register the deal." http://partnerdirect.dell.com/sites/channel/Documents/DealRegistrationOfficialGuidelines.pdf · Scenario 1. Government issues RFQ for 100 quantities of Dell Laptop Model XX. MSRP is $2000 each. There are 5 MAC awardees. Company ABC registers the deal for 100 quantities of Dell Laptop Model XX and therefore locks in guaranteed lowest pricing from the OEM. RFQ is released. Dell’s quote to Company ABC is $1000/laptop; Dell’s response to the other 4 MAC offerers is that the deal has been registered and therefore will not offer a quote. · Scenario 2. Same as Scenario 1. The 4 offerers (who have various reseller agreements) request a quote from Dell. Dell does not inform the 4 offerors that the deal has been registered with Company ABC and provides quotes consistent with those agreements, which will at all times be higher than Company ABC's registered price of $1000. · Scenario 3. Same as Scenario 1. Because the deal is registered, Dell does not bother with the paperwork and does not offer quote. No explanations provided. 2. Issue: Although the contract does not contain an OCI clause, the Contracting Officer has cautioned awardees with regard to OCI issues given the competitive nature of this under an ID/IQ MAC. These deal registrations defeats the intent of a MAC. The very nature of deal registration means a prime must somehow have prior pre-RFQ knowledge of the specifics, which calls into question potential procurement integrity and OCI issues. Further, when only one bid is received, the RFQ is re-released and any subsequent rounds of competition is likely to generate either no bids or higher bids, leaving the Government with a false sense of competition. The Government ultimately receives lowest pricing regardless, but it was based on an offeror having an unfair competitive advantage. In order to afford fair opportunity, the government would have to prohibit deal registration, which would be a challnege to enforce since it is an industry practice. 3. Question: We plan to discuss this with the Contracting Officer, but wanted to get the experts to weigh in with any comments. In particular, does anyone believe this is an acceptable practice that should be allowed to continue, possibly in recognition of the fact that pohibition of this industry practice would be diffcult to enforce?
  • Create New...