Wednesday, May 23, 2012


We need to clarify a few points about yesterday's post on misguided commercial item contracting.  First, as many of you have pointed out, we are statutory and regulatory purists.  We believe in following the rules strictly as they are written.  Second, we are not attacking commercial contracting with an agenda to demand contractors divulge their cost or pricing data.

In fact, we are not attacking commercial contracting at all.  We support the need to simplify federal procurement, make it more like the commercial world and thereby make it more attractive to commercial companies.  So, rather than supporting a narrower view of commercial contracting, we support a debate about broadening its application.  

The point we really want to make is we need to move in the commercial, UCC-like direction legally and not by subverting the existing law.

We also need to point out we do not understand the argument that we need a FAR Part 12 procurement in order to avoid submitting cost or pricing data.  The exception for adequate competition has been on the books since the 1960's.  Most procurements involve adequate competition.  So we do not need a Part 12 buy for that reason.

Finally, our main purpose in yesterday's post was to point out how the termination for convenience clause for commercial items needs to be changed.  Either write it like the UCC or use the regular clause.

Small business needs the principles articulated in FAR Parts 12 and 13.  We need to apply them in all small business buys.  We just need to make that the law.;

No comments:

Post a Comment