Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/5107-reps-certs-for-each-idc-order/&tab=comments
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 07:34:19
Document Index: 368848767

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4']

Reps & Certs for Each IDC Order? - Contract Award Process - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Reps & Certs for Each IDC Order?
By Sunstrider, May 26 in Contract Award Process
Assume you are managing an IDC and that the clause at 52.204-19 was included in that basic contract.
IAW FAR Subpart 4.12, is documenting Reps & Certs required in each instance of proposal evaluation/order award to the "prospective contractor"?
Is your rationale based on incorporation of Reps & Certs via 52.204-19, or that the IDC awardee is no longer a "prospective contractor", or something else?
Plus, common sense and correct principles.
Reps and Certs are handled before the indefinite-delivery contract is awarded. The order (child) inherits all the attributes of the contract (parent).
Nothing in FAR 16.505, Ordering, suggests anything about obtaining or documenting Reps and Certs.
Nothing in FAR Subpart 4.11 or 4.12 speaks to orders under indefinite-delivery contracts.
Some in our profession seem to neither have common sense nor understand correct principles, and seem to delight in forcing others to waste their time doing unnecessary and non-value-added work. If you are in one of those offices, you might have to ask for or document Reps and Certs for every order -- after all, you have to follow your boss's instructions. But maybe those bosses are unaware and are simply doing what they were told when they were younger. Maybe a professional discussion based on the FAR will awaken them to realize you are doing unnecessary and non-value-added work?
Too many people work for the process, than get the process to work for them/their customer. In this case, I work for the boss and am in a position to fight the fight... 😁
Are you asking as the govt or a contract holder ?
23 hours ago, Sunstrider said:
Is it a multiple award contract? Is it a small business set aside?
4 minutes ago, napolik said:
In this case, a single award IDC to a large business.
What were you thinking if it's multiple award set-aside to small businesses?
6 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:
Seems like overkill for a single award ID/IQ.
The government could request recertification for size questions, although each and every task order is also an overkill, in my opinion.
For instance see: 13﻿﻿ CFR﻿﻿﻿12﻿1.404(a﻿)﻿(2)(g);﻿
It is also overkill for a multiple-award IDIQ situation.
38 minutes ago, Sunstrider said:
What were you thinking if it's multi﻿ple award set-aside to small businesses?
There could be circumstances when a recertification of socioeconomic status would be in order: after 5 years of the contract term; after a merger, sale, acquisition, or contract novation; or if you believe the contract holder may have become large and if you want to dispose of that contractor for whatever reason..
4 hours ago, napolik said:
There could be circumstances when a recertification of socioeconomic status would be in order: after 5 years of the contract term; after a merger, sale, acquisition, or contract novation; or if you believe the contract holder may have become large and if you want to dispose of that contractor for whatever reason.
This is true under specific circumstances not raised in the original posting, which is asking about the complete reps and certs process for every order under an indefinite-delivery contract. On the topic of complete reps and certs for each and every order, I hope we all affirmatively agree that the answer is NO.
The original post identified an IDC contract. It needed to identify if the IDC is multiple award and if it is a socio-economic set aside. If the IDC is not multiple award and if it is not a set aside, I agree that you accept the reps and certs submitted for the original contract.
So, if the indefinite-delivery contract is multiple-award non-set-aside, then you would say that a contracting officer must obtain/document complete reps and certs for each and every order?
8 hours ago, ji20874 said:
I meant to say that but forgot to add “for a MATOC” (for each order).
I hope we all affirmatively agree that the answer is NO.
I can but only for a solicitation that include FAR 52.204-7 and the subsequent contract includes 52.204-13.
4.1103 -- Procedures.
(a) Unless the acquisition is exempt under 4.1102(a), the contracting officer--
(1) Shall verify that the offeror or quoter is registered in SAM (see paragraph (b) of this section) at the time an offer or quotation is submitted;
(2) Should use the unique entity identifier to verify SAM registration—
(3) Need not verify SAM registration before placing an order or call if the contract or agreement includes the provision at 52.204-7, System for Award Management, or the clause at 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions--Commercial Items, or a similar agency clause, except when use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is contemplated as a method of payment. (See 32.1108(b)(2).)
(i) Via https://www.sam.gov; or
(ii) As otherwise provided by agency procedures; or
There is a difference between (1) verifying that a contractor is registered in SAM; and (2) documenting reps and certs for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract.
In this thread, we're only talking (2) documenting reps and certs for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract.
So your view is that the following statement in 52.204-13 has nothing to do with verifying reps and certs as they apply to a ID contract and my previous reference to FAR subpart 4? Is not verifying SAM also verifying reps and certs?
"(2) The Contractor has completed the Core, Assertions, Representations and Certifications, and Points of Contact sections of the registration in the SAM"
The clause at FAR 52.204-13 does not require the contractor to update reps and certs for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract. Further, that clause does not require the contracting officer to document reps and certs in the file for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract.
No, unless the government has a sensible reason to (or wants to waste time by) "inspect" a potential recipient of an order for current status as a small business or other socioeconomic category.
By the way, this is a raging controversy in the government contracting industry.
Opinion A: Go with the default rule, which is that if you qualify as a small business at award, you can ride out the IDIQ/IDC "as a small business" even if you grow out of your small business status. Small businesses need this predictability and should not be penalized halfway through a IDIQ/IDC. Some small businesses depend on this default rule for their "transition plan" to move from small to large.
Opinion B: For multiple-award set-aside IDIQ/IDC, the government should or should be able to require "re-certification" of the relevant set-aside status. If the potential recipient of an order is no longer eligible for that set-aside status, that order should go to a current (small business or whatever). Once the small business is no longer small, it does not deserve set-asides. Small businesses should plan for this scenario accordingly.
PepeTheFrog should edit the previous response to:
"No. However, perhaps the government has a sensible reason to..."
The FAR citation you provided would not be the reason to ask for "re-certification."
Right -- requiring recertification of small business status is allowable [for orders against multiple-award IDIQ contracts] -- but that is different than documenting complete reps ﻿and certs for each and every order under an indefinite-delivery contract -- small business certification is just one of the reps and certs, and the original posting asked about documenting the complete reps and certs for each and every order. So I still say "No" to the question of requiring re-documentation of reps and certs for each and every order, even though I am okay with recertification of small business status.
@ji20874 PepeTheFrog now sees your distinction and agrees. Thank you.
On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 8:31 AM, Sunstrider said:
Assume ﻿you are managing an IDC and that the clause at 52.204-19 was included in that basic contract.
Introduction - I am providing a concise response as there has been appeal to common sense and principles however as I have noted already in this thread I believe the FAR provides the answer. Here is my extended effort that includes FAR citations to support that the FAR provides the answer. As you will see it is not matter of feeling, options, or opinions.
Response - There is no need to document the certs and reps in each instance of proposal evaluation pursuant to both FAR subpart 4.11 and FAR subpart 4.12 and the clauses each requires in contracts that provide that a contractor shall complete its representations and certifications via the System for Award Management (SAM).
FAR subpart 4.1102, and its associated required clauses, requires all contractors to be registered in SAM at contract award unless an exception applies. Further as provided by FAR subpart 4.1103 the CO, unless an exception applies, shall verify SAM registration of the contractor at time of offer or quotation. However at 4.1103 it is provided that the CO need not verify the contractors registration for orders or calls if FAR Clause 52.204-7 is in the contract.
FAR subpart 4.1105 requires both 52.204-7 and 52.204-13 in all solicitation and contracts unless the aforementioned exception applies.
Pursuant to FAR subpart 4.12 SAM registration includes representations and certifications and incorporates a contractor’s representations and certifications into a contract (reference FAR4.1200(c)) via the aforementioned clauses. Further pursuant to 4.1201 the contractors annual reps and certs are to be updated as necessary but at least annually and again the aforementioned clauses that are in a contract require the contractor to update its SAM registration. 4.1202 provides that 52.204-19 is simply method of incorporating by reference the reps and certs that the contractor has already completed via its SAM registration. Exact wording of 52.204-19 (emphasis added) is “The Contractor’s representations and certifications, including those completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM), are incorporated by reference into the contract.”
Conclusion – Unless an exception applies the representations and certifications for an ID contract are carried in the contractors SAM registration and included in the contract via various clauses such as 52.204-7, 52,204-8, 52.204-13 and 52.219-28* all of which provide for the SAM registration and its updates as required or at least annually. FAR 52.204-19 is simply a reference to these certifications the contractor has made via SAM.
Further as provided by FAR 4.1103(a)(3) when representations and certifications are incorporated into the ID contract pursuant to the contractors SAM registration as provided by the clauses that so incorporate the registration the contractor need not verify its SAM registration again, unless the ID contract provides for payment by the Governments credit card.
*52.219-28 provides when a business must update its size certification in SAM.
Conclusion – Unless an exception applies the representations and certifications for an ID contract are carried in the contractors SAM registration and includ﻿ed in the contract via various clauses such as 52.204-7, 52,204-8, 52.204-13 and 52.219-28* all of which provide for t﻿he SAM registration and its updates as required or at least annually. FAR 52.204-19 is sim﻿ply a reference to these certifications the contractor has made via SAM.﻿﻿﻿
While the CO is not required to get a recertification, if the CO wants a recertification at the time of issuance of an RFQ under the IDC, the CO can do so.
This protest relates solely to the small business certification requirement. Specifically, CMS asserts that it is improper for the agency to require it to certify its small business size status as of the time it submits its quotation. According to the protester, it certified its small size status in 1997, at the time it submitted its initial offer to the General Services Administration (GSA) for award of its FSS contract; it maintains that its small business status for purposes of receiving task order awards was established by this certification, and that it should remain in effect for the duration of its FSS contract. /2/ CMS maintains that the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 C.F.R. Sec. 121.404 (2002) support its position by establishing the date of initial offer submission as the time when SBA will determine a firm's size status. CMS concludes that, if it is required to recertify its status as of the time it submits its quote, it will in essence be improperly excluded from participation in the acquisition because it cannot currently represent itself as small.
We find nothing improper in the challenged requirement. The purpose of the Small Business Act as it relates to government acquisitions is to ensure that a fair proportion of all government contracts be placed with small business concerns. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644 (2000). Implicit in this is the notion that the work under the contract will actually be performed by a small business. Toward this end, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is designed, for example, to ensure that small businesses perform a majority of the work under a set-aside contract. FAR Sec. 52.219-14. The self-certification requirement in the RFQ is consistent with these purposes. /3/
CMS Information Services, Inc., B-290541, Aug 7, 2002
https://www.gao.gov/products/402788#mt=e-report
Also, see this recent discussion of size recertification:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brief-history-size-status-recertification-kenneth-dodds