Service Contract Act

A quick question, if the contract in question was issued 10 years ago, what clause in that contract requires you to make this report?

If these are IT Services, they may be professional services.  If they are professional services, then the SCA does not apply and the clause would not be in the contract.  I would contact the person who contacted you and ask them if the information is required for non-SCA professional services.  If the SCA clauses are not in your contract, then it is a good bet that you are providing professional services.

awayforward said:

One IDIQ in particular contains the Services Contract Far clause, but there was never any Wage Determinations included in the IDIQ or task orders... The contract is for the provision of IT professional services....

???

If we're talking about FAR Subpart 4.17, then discussions of SCA or professional services is irrelevant.

awayforward, I cannot make any sense of your original posting.  There is one simple question that you must answer.

Does your contract (or parent contract for your order) contain either of the clauses at FAR 52.204-14 or -15? 
Select One:  YES or NO. 

If YES, then you must comply with the clause and make the report in SAM, period.  Forget about SCA and WDs -- they are irrelevant to the matter at hand.  You report direct labor services performed under the contract, whether professional, SCA, construction, or any other services.

If NO, then you don't need to make the report, period,

Period.

This really is a simple YES or NO question.

Best wishes...

ji, would your position be the same if the clause was improperly inserted into a contract, e.g., a contract funded by DoD appropriations or a classified contract?

Ji, Sorry about dropping off. Yes, you are correct. the clause 52-204-15 was added via mod to the IDIQ. I now understand this reporting has nothing to do with the Service Contract Act 52.222-41 and the lack of Wage Determinations.  Thank you for the clarification and insight.

Retreadfed said:

ji, would your position be the same if the clause was improperly inserted into a contract, e.g., a contract funded by DoD appropriations or a classified contract?

Retreadfed,

Yes.  You would agree, right?  

If the clause doesn't belong, it wouldn't have been included in the first place.  If it was put there erroneously, it may be easily removed by modification.

awayforward said:

Ji, Sorry about dropping off. Yes, you are correct. the clause 52-204-15 was added via mod to the IDIQ. I now understand this reporting has nothing to do with the Service Contract Act 52.222-41 and the lack of Wage Determinations.  Thank you for the clarification and insight.

awayforward,

Your company was not required to agree to the addition of the clause to your ten-year-old contract.  One presumes your agreement was voluntary and supported by an exchange of consideration.

ji20874 said:

If the clause doesn't belong, it wouldn't have been included in the first place.

You were joking, right?

ji20874 said:

awayforward,

Your company was not required to agree to the addition of the clause to your ten-year-old contract.  One presumes your agreement was voluntary and supported by an exchange of consideration.

Another attempt at humor! It assumes that the contractor actually read the modification, other than the funding line.

A lot of unsophisticated contractors think that COs can add clauses at will. A lot of unsophisticated COs think so, too.

Vern Edwards said:

You were joking, right?

Not much.  The parties to the contract (both of them) had a duty to make sure the terms and conditions were correct.  I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I want to presume that a contract is correct as written.  However, if an error was made, it is very easy to fix.

here_2_help said:

Another attempt at humor! It assumes that the contractor actually read the modification, other than the funding line.

A sad humor, with irony.  If the contractor agreed to the modification without reading the text, then I am wholly unsympathetic.  However, it can be a learning experience, so I am glad it was posted here.  I hope other contractors will learn -- and other contracting officers, too. 

Even now, the contractor can beg to have the clause removed from the contract.

ji20874 said:

If the contractor agreed to the modification without reading the text, then I am wholly unsympathetic.  However, it can be a learning experience, so I am glad it was posted here.  I hope other contractors will learn -- and other contracting officers, too.

Reminds me of the time where I was auditing / reviewing contract briefs and it turns out all the mods had been signed by the VP's Admin. Unread. She didn't want to bother the VP with administrative stuff that wasted his time.

That contractor is no longer in business. Coincidence? Not really.