Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/3786-are-small-business-concerns-nontraditional-defense-contractors/&tab=comments
Timestamp: 2019-07-19 11:09:08
Document Index: 73046114

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 12', 'art 15', 'art 12', 'art 12', 'art 15', 'ART 12']

Are Small Business Concerns "Nontraditional Defense Contractors?" - Don Mansfield's Blog - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Entry posted by Don Mansfield · March 29, 2018
Previous entry Acquisition Mentoring Program Survey
Next entry Problem of the Day--Pricing Contingencies
All small businesses are non-traditional defense contractors so the DoD decides to use Commercial Item acquisition procedures without having to do a commercial item determination.
The DoD also determines that adequate competition will not occur and includes DFARS Clause 252.215-7070.
In the first scenario I think I have it right but what about the second one? It seems that DoD has forgotten or has on purpose failed to give the “may” option to CO’s with regard to DFARS Clause 252.215-7010 as there is no exception available to the CO if the offeror is a non-traditional DoD contractor.
In either scenario, assuming that there is (adequate) competition, no certified cost or pricing data is required anyway. Set asides (1st scenario) use competitive procedures...
@here_2_help @joel hoffman- I tried editing my posts. I still may not have it right with regard to the competition matter and appreciate your reminders. Maybe I should delete both quite honestly.
I still get back to the "may". It just seems to me that beyond the new provision at 252.215-7013 there is no allowance for a business to state that they believe they are a non-traditional defense contractor, which then bothers me in how, in other than a set-aside, as a result of market research a CO might think they will reach non-traditional defense contractors and elect to use the "may" allowance.
Leads me the conclusion that supports Don's blog that the new category of non-traditional defense contractor will only be considered when a small business set-aside is determined?
On 4/1/2018 at 12:08 PM, here_2_help said:
I would correct your statement to read "ALL small businesses are non-traditional defense contractors..."
That's not necessarily true. Remember that it's possible for a contractor to be small under some NAICS codes, and not small in others. So, it's possible that a contractor that is small under one NAICS code has performed a CAS-covered contract under a different NAICS code. Also, it's possible that a contractor was not small when it was awarded a CAS-covered contract, but is small now. That's why I used "most" in the blog entry.
I think you have it right in the second scenario, too. The solicitation will also include DFARS 252.215-7013. I don't understand your last sentence.
@Don Mansfield – As I understand the new 252.215-7010 clause exceptions to cost or price data are – prices set by law/regulation and commercial item. As provided by the 252.215-7013 provision a product/service of a non-traditional defense contractor is treated as if, but is not, a commercial item.
My read is that a non-traditional defense contractor only exists if the CO determines prior to the solicitation stage that there companies out there that are non-traditional defense contractors. After that, lets say prior to award but after solicitation closes or even after award (modification), a contractor could not say they are a non-traditional contractor and propose that they do not have to provide cost or pricing data.
Conclusion on my part - Market research and the CO electing to take the “may” option and solicits the need (otherwise a non-commercial item) under FAR Part 12 provides the only opportunity for a non-traditional defense contractor to not provide certified cost or pricing data. There is no provision or clause that allows after the CO’s initial determination at solicitation for a contractor to say I am a non-traditional defense contractor that allows the CO to say yep you are right and cost or pricing data is not required. Exception would be if the CO was convinced that market research was flawed and many non-traditional’s were competing and change the solicitation to a commercial item acquisition.
could the CO use Part 15 procedures for the others but use Part 12 procedures for the NTDCs?
It's a popular misconception that FAR part 12 procedures are for commercial items and FAR part 15 procedures are for noncommercial items. When acquiring commercial items, the CO will typically use one of three contracting methods:
As such, I think what you're asking is if, when acquiring noncommercial items on a competitive basis, the CO should prepare one solicitation for NTDCs (containing commercial provisions & clauses) and one for others (containing noncommercial provisions & clauses). That's a good question. I don't know.
(post edited after further analysis of the rule, hyperlinks inserted and more clear questions)
It was brought to my attention that there is also another significant possibility of simplification for a "nontraditional defense contractor", introduced with this DFARs change, which is in 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E).
It states that if a nontraditional defense contractor just submits a written request for exemption based on this 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E) becomes automatically exempt from the submission of certified cost or pricing data, without the discretionality of the CO to accept it or not. This is easier whenever the supplier is obviously never subject to Full CAS because of it's nature. (E.g. small businesses and foreign concerns, considering the exemptions in 9903.201-1 "CAS Applicability" respectively at points (b)(3) and (b)(4))
Considering the above cited exemption granted from the Full coverage, the exemption from submitting certified cost and pricing data becomes applicable to a very large number of Companies: most of US small businesses and All non US Companies.
It is not like the simplification that could be reached with the application of PART 12 requirements the CO may decide to apply, but the exemption on 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E) is not subject to the CO determination and it still produces a non-negligible reduction in effort (cost and time) for all the stakeholders of the acquisition process (CO, DCAA/DCMA, Contractors and Subcontractors).
What do you think about this process improvement?
Question 1) Do you agree that the supplier does not have the need to wait for confirmation that the exemption is applicable?
Question 2) Is this exemption 252.215-7010 (b)(1)(ii)(E) applicable also to the subcontractors being the DFARs part of the flowdowns? Or can a CO/prime contractor decide not to flowdown the clause or declare not applicable a portion of it (like specifically subpara (b)(1)(ii)(E))?
Thank you for any constructive opinion you may add.
Edited March 13 by B2B.Consultancy
I don't see the "automatically exempt" part in the clause.
I meant that the rule states that
- the Offeror may submit a written request for exemption
- The Contracting Officer may require additional supporting information, but only to the extent necessary to determine whether an exception should be granted
But if a US small business in the written request proves that it does not have currently nor had in the last year Fully CAS covered contracts, or for example ALL non US Companies that are subject only to modified CAS coverage, just for being foreign concern they fall into the "Nontraditional defence contractor" definition and are automatically exempt, because I don't see what kind of "additional supporting information" can be reasonably requested being as it is by rules.
But please someone spend a cent to review the two questions in my previous post.