Are FAR 52.212-1 to -5 required for FAR Part 8.405 GSA Schedule RFQs?

govt2310 said:

Are FAR 52.212-1 to -5 required to be included in a FAR Part 8.405 GSA Schedule RFQ?

No.

The clauses at FAR 52.212-4 and -5 are already part of the parent schedule contracts.

Thanks!

govt2310 said:

Are FAR 52.212-1 to -5 required to be included in a FAR Part 8.405 GSA Schedule RFQ?

I do not disagree with the response provided but it does raise an interesting point of discussion.   Specifically you asked about "1-5", ji20874 has only mentioned 4 & 5 so what about 1 & 3?

By read of the FAR 52.212-1 is a provision that is applicable to the solicitation in this case a proposed GSA Schedule contract and as such this instruction provision could be viewed as not being carried forward to the RFQ process for resulting TO/DO’s issued against the awarded parent contract.  This view might be supported in that the  Ordering Clause 52.216-18 (deviation) usually included in all GSA FSS contracts makes reference only to “terms and conditions” from the GSA FSS “contract” being applicable and not the terms and conditions of the “solicitation” of the GSA FSS contract. The “Table of Contents” for a GSA FSS solicitation suggests that only 4 & 5 carry to TO/DO's as they are contained in  “Part I” of GSA FSS solicitation package as "contract terms and conditions", while “Part III” containing the 52.212-1 as included in 52.252-1 is “Vendor Instructions”.    52.212-3 is in Part V Offeror Representations and Certifications.

All said one could conclude that 1 & 3 do not carry  to TO/DOs via 52.216-18.   This conclusion is clouded however if one looks at GSA's e-Library and views the "contract clauses' for a particular contractor where you will find 1 and 3 appear.

Overall  I for one would pay pretty literal attention to FAR Part 8.4 (and agency supplements to 8.4)  for what should be included in an RFQ as I am not so sure that 1 & 3 are considered a part of the parent GSA FSS "contract".  Or from another view 1 & 3 are no longer needed for doing an RFQ,  the requirements specific to each were addressed when the parent contract was solicited and awarded.

The -3 reps and certs provision applies to the resulting contract and all orders issued under it, but reps and certs are established at the parent schedule contract level and not at the order level.  I always cringe whenever I see a contracting officer trying to re-establish a complete reps and certs package for an order.

Thanks! It would be nice if the FAR Council would look into clarifying all of this.

govt2310 said:

Thanks! It would be nice if the FAR Council would look into clarifying all of this.

ji20874 said:

The -3 reps and certs provision applies to the resulting contract and all orders issued under it, but reps and certs are established at the parent schedule contract level and not at the order level.  I always cringe whenever I see a contracting officer trying to re-establish a complete reps and certs package for an order.

Yes.   And Yes.

But as some GSA blogs indicate it might be okay to do add some reps and certs if the agency using the GSA FSS felt it necessary and they are not in conflict with the parent GSA FSS.   In the end I agree clarification would be nice but suspect in part that the GSA FSSs' have gone, to an extent, the same direction as an agency's own IDIQ where the contract vehicle is massaged beyond original intent.

A lot of reps and certs at the order level is due to misunderstandings and confusion about small business size status.  Some agencies policies insist on verifying size status before placing an order.  But that doesn’t require complete reps or certs.  Nor does it even necessarily mean any one for size status.

On 2/15/2020 at 10:11 AM, formerfed said:

A lot of reps and certs at the order level is due to misunderstandings and confusion about small business size status.  Some agencies policies insist on verifying size status before placing an order.

For example, the VA has it's own database for SD/VOSB certification as part of the Vets First Contracting Program. GSA says they are, but most are not for that agency.