.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'representations'.
Found 3 results
-
Reference Interim Rule for FAR Case 2019-009 published July 14, 2020 in the Federal Register - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-14/pdf/2020-15293.pdf Ultimately, I would like to know your opinion whether a bilateral contract modification should be pursued to update FAR 52.204-25 to the newest AUG 2020 version. The clause is currently included in my IDIQ commercial services contract. The contract base and all options is anticipated to be 60 months in length, estimated total $12M. The contractor completed their representations in SAM for provisions 52.212-3(v)(2) and 52.204-26(c) and stated "does not" provide covered telecommunications equipment or services for both provisions. Provision FAR 52.204-24 is also being updated AUG 2020. Do I need their representations for FAR 52.204-24(d)(2)? Potentially prior to exercising an option??? The Interim Rule states contracting officers shall modify existing contracts prior to placing future orders. On page 11 of the Federal Register publication it states, "the objective of the rule is to provide an information collection mechanism that relies on an offer-by-offer representation that is required to enable agencies to determine and ensure that they are complying with section 889(a)(1)(B)." FAR 52.204-25 AUG 2019 does not address section 889(a)(1)(B). FAR 52.204-25 AUG 2020 added a second paragraph under (b), the second paragraph pertains to section 889(a)(1)(B). If I do not modify my contract to update FAR 52.204-25, will I potentially be in violation of section 889(a)(1)(B)? I can't recall ever modifying a contract just to include the most current version of a clause. Do you think a modification to update FAR 52.204-25 to AUG 2020 is appropriate? If so, would you expect this to be a no-cost mod? Thanks in advance for participating in this discussion! -
I would appreciate some input regarding Reps & Certs received from companies that are subsidiaries of large businesses. We received a Rep Cert from a corporation with 27 employees. They are not claiming small business under the NAICS size standard of 500 employees because they are a "wholly owned subsidiary" under a very large business (fine). However, when it comes to answereing "EEO Previous Contracts and Complaince Reports", they answered that they HAVE participated in previous contracts/subcontracts subject to EEO, but have NOT filed compliance reports because it has less than 50 employees. In addition, for Affirmative Action Compliance, they answered "has NOT developed" AA programs because it has not previously had prime contracts or first tier subcontracts amounting to $50K or more when their parent organization clearly has. My question is this: As a wholly owned subsidiary of a company that would be required to file EEO complainace reports and develop AA programs, can this subsidiary exempt itself on the above basis? I can't find anything on the SAM website or in FAR 4.12 which addresses this. Also, would the same be true for affiliates as it would subsidiaries? Thanks for your input.
-
I've worked at a couple companies and my current company has acquired a couple companies since I've been with them. During my time in procurement I've seen these companies treat the requirement for Representations and Certifications differently. In reading the requirements under FAR, there does not seem to be a specific threshold where these would be required (either Micro-Purchase, Simplified Acquisition, or other). Looking at some of the required certifications though, it appears that some are actually required for ANY solicitation. Currently we have a policy setting the requirement for these at $10K which mirrors what one of the companies we acquired had. A request came internally here on whether we could raise them to $30K. Before I consider the request, I wanted to see if there is any specific regulatory or policy requirement that sets a threshold where these are required. Have any of you seen any documentation pertaining to a specific threshold? Do you currently have a threshold in your policy where these are required and has this threshold held up under DCMA Audit?
