Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1499-13-cfr-1256/
Timestamp: 2017-12-11 04:21:53
Document Index: 367987048

Matched Legal Cases: ['§125', '§124', '§ 125', '§121', '§121', '§125', '§121', '§121']

13 CFR 125.6 - Contract Administration - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
13 CFR 125.6
By ca2cs, February 28, 2012 in Contract Administration
ca2cs 0
I'm new to the community and ran across an odd situation. a small business set aside is awarded to an SDV prime with an SB sub. There's no limitation on subcontracting clause in the contract, and the proposal as written has the small business sub working more than 50% of the contract cost.
Does the SDV prime need to comply with the 13 CFR 125.6?
See FAR 19.508(e). The limitations on subcontracting clause must be included in all solicitations and contracts if any portion of the requirement is set aside for small business concerns. That would include set-asides for service disabled veteran owned small business concerns. If the procurement was set-aside for SDVOSBC's, then the clause should be in the contract.
I've taken a look through the document several times, and the FAR clause is not in the contract.
I cannot explain that. By the way, read 13 CFR 125.6( .
Vern - Actually I disagree. The correct reference for the correct clause regarding subcontractor limitations for a SDVOSB setaside is FAR 19.1407. The respective clause is then FAR 52.219-27. Also note the language of clause 52.219-27 as opposed to FAR 52.219-14 regarding JVs.
You're right. Interesting that FAR does not clearly state that the Limitations clause does not apply to SDVOSB set-asides. The limitations are the same in terms of percentages, but the -47 clause allows the SDVOSB to use employees of other SDVOSBs in order to meet the quotas.
Note that a joint Venture as an entity may fulfill the self-performed work requirement, without the SDVO small business performing the required percentage.
Under 13 CFR 125.6( (5): "In accordance with §125.15( (3), the SDVO SBC joint venture must perform the applicable percentage of work."
Under FAR Clause 52.219-27 (d)," A joint venture may be considered a service-disabled veteran owned small business concern if—
(4) The joint venture meets the requirements of 13 CFR 125.15( "
13 CFR 125.15( says:
( Joint ventures. An SDVO SBC may enter into a joint venture agreement with one or more other SBCs for the purpose of performing an SDVO contract.
(1) Size of concerns to an SDVO SBC joint venture.
(i) A joint venture of at least one SDVO SBC and one or more other business concerns may submit an offer as a small business for a competitive SDVO SBC procurement so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract, provided:
(B ) For a procurement having an employee-based size standard, the procurement exceeds $10 million;
(ii) For sole source and competitive SDVO SBC procurements that do not exceed the dollar levels identified in paragraphs ( (1)(i)(A) and ( of this section, an SDVO SBC entering into a joint venture agreement with another concern is considered to be affiliated for size purposes with the other concern with respect to performance of the SDVO contract. The combined annual receipts or employees of the concerns entering into the joint venture must meet the size standard for the NAICS code assigned to the SDVO contract.
(2) Contents of joint venture agreement. Every joint venture agreement to perform an SDVO contract must contain a provision:
(3) Performance of work. For any SDVO contract, the joint venture must perform the applicable percentage of work required by §124.510 of this chapter.
(4) Contract execution. The procuring activity will execute an SDVO contract in the name of the joint venture entity or SDVO SBC.
(5) Inspection of records. SBA may inspect the records of the joint venture without notice at any time deemed necessary.
The OP wrote that the acquisition was a small business set-aside awarded to an SDVOSB--not a SDVOSB set-aside. As such, it would not contain FAR 52.219-27.
Carl. You're not right.
Good point, Don. I had noticed that the other day but forgot. My comments above apply to SDVOB set-asides.
Ca2cs, what type of set-aside was this?
If it was a small buisness set-aside, I think that the 52.219-14 clause, Limitation on Subcontracting is mandatory by Law. It would probably be incorporated by operation of law, anyway. I'm in California, but my folder on this topic is back home.
Thank you so much for your inputs, I appreciate it. Joel, Don, you are correct, it was a small business set aside. I agree with you Joel, concerning incorporation through the Christian Doctrine. Luckily enough, the contract fits under 13 CFR § 125.6(h)(i)
Where an offeror is exempt from affiliation under §121.103(h)(3) of this chapter and qualifies as a small business concern, the performance of work requirements set forth in this section apply to the cooperative effort of the joint venture, not its individual members.
13 CFR §121.103(h)(3) states:
(A) The procurement qualifies as a “bundled” requirement, at any dollar value, within the meaning of §125.2(d)(1)(i) of this chapter
Since §121.103(h)(3)(A) applies, our efforts with our only sub will comply with the 50% rule, regardless of it's presence in the contract.
And thanks to everyone for taking it easy on my first post.
Ca- a subcontractor is not a joint venture partner. You said that the Small Disabled Veteran, Small business prime contractor has a small buisness subcontractor - if I read your acronyms correctly.
Thus, 13 CFR 125.6(h)[actually, it is 125.6(i)- there is no 125.(6)(h)(i)] doesn't apply here. Neither would 13 CFR §121.103(h)(3).
Is this a JV or not? Is yes, is the JV populated or unpopulated? Is this a question of subcontracting to a JV entity (hense the populated/unpopulated questions)?
Don (and Joel) - I understood the OP question that started this thread. My response regarding FAR 19.14 and clause 52.219-27 was made with specific reference to a post that Vern made not the one that OP made ergo the reason my post was addressed to "Vern" and not OP. If my post was read as addressing the OP post I apologize for the confusion.
Carl, I see now that you were referring to the statement "That would include set-asides for service disabled veteran owned small business concerns. If the procurement was set-aside for SDVOSBC's, then the clause should be in the contract. "
As Vern did say in the first sentence, in accordance with the language of FAR 19.508(e), the limitations on subcontracting clause must be included in all solicitations and contracts if any portion of the requirement is set aside for small business concerns. I think this is a case where existing FAR coverage didn't keep up with the addition of more set-aside programs for various specific small business categories. It seems that Congress isn't consistent in drafting new categories of small business or small, disadvantaged business type set-asides.