FAR and Contract Provisions Assignment

Running head: FEDERAL ACQUISITIONS 1

FEDERAL ACQUISITIONS 6

Federal acquisitions

Name

Institution

Federal acquisitions

Introduction

The federal acquisition review offers guidelines on how the contracting officers in federal agencies needs to ascertain that before issuing a federal contract, the applicant and the tasks performed conforms with the contract requirements. This is done by carrying out the necessary tests as well as inspections. Such requirements may include technical requirements for manufactures that are tasked with providing goods to the federal agencies. Contractors are expected to document evidence that substantiates the qualification to a contract by an applicant. This study explores the standard default clause as well as the delay provision. It also provides guidelines on how contracting officers may engage in payment terms changes within in a contract within the confines of the law and the potential steps that may be taken to boost improvements, making the process more efficient

Answer to question 1

Standard default clause is closely related with the contract termination clause. It offers the government via the contracting officer the right to bring a contract to an end if the other party braches the requirements of the contract. This is usually executed when delivery of services or goods is not done as agreed within the contract and within the right time. It’s also done when the other party fails to commence the execution of the project. Thirdly, this clause is employed if the contractor in one way or another fails to perform an action which is material to the success of the entire project (Acquisition.gov 2015)

FARS delay provision may be combined with the standard default clause to protect both the contracting party and the contractor in multiple ways. For instance, FAR 52.249-8c clearly indicates that the contractor may be excused from nonperformance when this is caused by an act of God. This ensures that the contractor is not forced to meet the costs in such a scenario. The government on the other hand is also protected by the clause. It compels the government to provide services or supplies that were frustrated under the contract but charge extra charges on the contractor. This implies that the contractor is prevented from stimulating adverse event with an aim of claiming frustration and gaining from government reproduction of such goods or services (Compton, 2010).

Answer to question 2

There would be legal consequences if the contracting officer changes the agreed payment terms. For instance, if the officer alters a contract payment mode such as that of the contractor accessing down payment before commencement of the project, then it may be difficult for the contractor to commence operations. To the government it would be a loss as the project would not be executed. The contractor may also breach the government on bases of breach of contract. The contracting officer, as a government agency, may be accused of failing to execute his duty as per the directions issued and hence be liable for any damages that may arise. At the same time, if such a contracting officer suspends performance based pay and pays the contractor before performance, it would end up denying the government the benefits that comes with performance based pay. Under this mode, the government does not end up losing funds to non-performers and the cost incurred is in line with the benefit the government derives from such services.

In spite of the above indication, it does not imply that there can never be a legally recognized process of changing payment terms. The procurement laws and procedures require that the contracting officer should inform the contract of the intended change of terms in writing. These changes must be within the confines of the contract. They should take time as well as resource limits that were agreed upon by both the government and the contractor. When the contractor successfully puts his case forward that such changes resulted to material change in financial resources that are necessary for successful execution of the project, adjustments should be done to restate the contractor back to the initially agreed position. This may be done for any other part of the entire contract which may have been affected by these changes. If the contractors’ position is not upheld to the executable state, the contractor is not obliged to perform. The contracting officer is normally compelled to sign such changes (Acquisition.gov 2015)

Answer to question 3

While the current inspection procedures forms good bases for ensuring proper assigning of government contracts, there are some grey areas that needs to be addressed. For instance, the government should regularly audit the contracting procedures that are employed by the contracting officer during inspections. This would ensure that the contracting officer only maintains inspection system which is acceptable as per the set standards. Other government procedural auditors should be authorized to make random inspections on procedures employed. In the process of inspection, there would be a need for the government to ensure that such inspection team is comprised of individuals from both the government and the private sector. This would be important in ensuring that the deficiencies of the public sector are eliminated (Compton, 2010).

The second procedure that ought to be taken is that of ensuring that measures are put in place to avoid conflict of interest. This would be done through strengthening of the entity’s internal control as well as requiring that a higher ranking officer sign such procurement contracts when they involve amounts exceeding $ 1 million. This would minimize chances of kickbacks and corruption.

Conclusion

From the above presentation, it is evident that the need for proper guidelines in federal contracts is important. It will ensure that federal resources are utilized in an optimal manner. The costs that the government incurs in such contracts should be in line with the benefits that it derives from the same contracts. The need for performance based payment terms is thus high. Ensuring that corruption through kickbacks is eliminated is also high

References

Acquisition.gov (2016). Contractor inspection requirement. Retrieved from

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/52_246.html

Acquisition.gov (2016). Subpart 43.2 – change orders. Retrieved from

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2043_2.html

Compton, P. B. (2010). Federal acquisition: Key issues and guidance. Vienna, VA: McGraw

Hills