DFARS 252.247-7023
Started by Don Mansfield · Nov 12, 2015 · 2 replies
- DOriginal post
Don Mansfield
Nov 12, 2015 · 10y ago
Does DFARS 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, apply to the shipment of contractor-owned equipment to a construction site? I know that it applies to construction material, but am not sure if it applies to the shipment of equipment that the contractor will use to perform the construction work. The relevant definition of "supplies" from the clause is:
“Supplies” means all property, except land and interests in land, that is clearly identifiable for eventual use by or owned by the DoD at the time of transportation by sea.
(i) An item is clearly identifiable for eventual use by the DoD if, for example, the contract documentation contains a reference to a DoD contract number or a military destination.
(ii) “Supplies” includes (but is not limited to) public works; buildings and facilities; ships; floating equipment and vessels of every character, type, and description, with parts, subassemblies, accessories, and equipment; machine tools; material; equipment; stores of all kinds; end items; construction materials; and components of the foregoing.
My interpretation is that contractor-owned equipment would not meet the definition of "supplies".
- M
Matthew Fleharty
Nov 13, 2015 · 10y ago
I agree with your interpretation (in most instances).
The clause presents two criteria for consideration of the applicability of DFARS 252.247-7023 to contractor-owned equipment (COE). Is the COE "clearly identifiable for:
(1) "eventual use by[...the DoD]" or
(2) "owned by the DoD"
Equipment cannot be owned by the DoD and the Contractor simultaneously so COE would not meet criterion (2).
The only situation I could see COE meeting criterion (1) is if the DoD leases a piece of equipment. In those cases, the contractor could own the equipment, but it would be for use by the DoD IAW the lease hence fulfilling criterion (1).
Is there a specific situation you're analyzing for applicability of DFARS 252.247-7023 to COE or is this merely a hypo?
- D
Don Mansfield
Nov 13, 2015 · 10y ago
There's a specific situation. A contractor is asserting that the clause doesn't apply to the transportation of his own equipment.