http://disqus.com/by/InterestedTaxpayer/enTue, 01 Sep 2009 16:57:31 -0000http://openregs.com/regulations/view/98992/federal_acquisition_regulation_far_case_2008-011_government_property#comment-15734264<p>From FAR Case 2008-11....." Language was added to FAR 15.404–4(a)(3) as follows— ‘‘Unless the contractor acquired property is a deliverable under the contract, no profit or fee shall be permitted on the cost of the property.’’ "</p><p>Is the intent that this proposed language deals with contractor acquired property that is part of a deliverable (a broader interpretation) vice it being in and of itself a deliverable (a more strict interpretation). However, if it's the later interpretation, I'm lost as to what the intent of the proposed language would be. In that scenario, the contractor would only get profit on an item it acquires as a whole from its subcontractor and delivers "as is" to the Government. The majority of Government dollars spent on supplies involve the contractor acquiring material that is that bent, shaped, modified, configured (or otherwise twisted, turned, etc.) into a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The stricter interpretation would mean the Govt. is advocating (i.e. rewarding via profit) effort that is basically buying COTS "as is" and never rewarding innovation or using Govt. unique requirements.</p>InterestedTaxpayerTue, 01 Sep 2009 16:57:31 -0000