Sign In
  • Question

    Since property can only be accountable to one contract, the property is listed on Contract A's GFP attachment. Can Contractor B comply with GFP requirements without it being on Contractor B's GFP attachment. The speed/need to getting these items repairs would preclude issuing modifications to contract to transfer property between contracts. Plus due to the number of transfers would become extremely administratively burdensome due to extreme number of transfers. This has been working with no issues for many years as Contractor A tracks and reports the property moving to all of their contractors, but questions have arise due to heighten concentration on GFP accountability. How should I comply with attachment requirements and accountability to only one contract?


    The requirements of the Government Property clause at FAR 52.245-1, which includes the “GFP requirements” applies to property accountable to the contract.  GFP shall be listed in the contract in accordance with FAR 45.201(a), which states the contracting officer shall insert a listing of the Government property to be offered in all solicitations where Government-furnished property is anticipated.  If the GFP is not listed in the contract there is no contractual coverage. 
    Also, as you know, the Department of Defense is required to list GFP in contracts using the attachments prescribed in DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) 245.103-72.  PGI 245.103-72(c) provides a few examples of when the use of a Scheduled Government-furnished property attachment is required.  It specifically identifies that the attachment is required when reparables are being provided under a repair, modification, or overhaul contract, such as that awarded to Contractor B. 
    As you have pointed out, Government property can only be contractually accountable to a single contract and only one contract at a time (PGI 245.102-70).  Therefore, contractual accountability would have to be transferred between the contracts awarded to Contractor A and Contractor B.  The attachments are also required when transferring Government property accountability (PGI 245.103-71).
    There is another path that could have been taken with regard to Contractor A.  Consider this.  Contractor A is awarded a services contract involving the receipt, storage, inventory control, and issuance of Government property upon the Government’s direction.  Therefore this Government property and the services provided in relation to this property is the subject of the contract and appropriately addressed in the performance work statement (PWS) or statement of work (SOW).  The PWS or SOW describes/defines the latitude Contractor A has to perform under their contract as well as controls the Government (requiring activity) wishes to impose on the contractor.
    As the subject of the services contract this Government property would fall under PWS/SOW requirements, not FAR 52.245-1, Government Property clause requirements.
    Without full knowledge of your current situation, this scenario is under the assumption that Contractor A is probably utilizing an AF accountable property systems to control and track the subject property subject to direction in the PWS/SOW.  So, while Contractor A is performing PWS/SOW required services relative to this Government property, the property remains under the AF accountable property system. 
    Let’s for a moment forget that you have a support contract and Contractor A.  Instead, recall the time where GS or wage grade folks ran the Contractor Inventory Control Point (CICP).  These employees performed a full range of services (think PWS/SOW here), yet we DID NOT transfer accountability to them.  These employees were subject to a full range of checks controls and inventory accountability (think PWS/SOW here) yet we DID NOT transfer accountability to them.
    So why would we transferring accountability to Contractor A when we’re basically having them perform the same duties and responsibilities using AF accountability systems that Government employees use?
    What are the consequences?  Accountability headaches and administrative burdens such as you’ve described. 
    Recall that the PWS/SOW should elicit the full range of services required to be performed, the Government systems interfaces involved and the controls the requiring activity desires over that work effort.  Making the contractor accountable (therefore steward) of this property under the Government property clause would not be a contract requirement if the property is accounted for in the AF accountable property system, but instead subject to the controls established in the PWS/SOW. 

    Open full Question Details