Is there a regulatory or statutory requirement for the Contracting Officer to ensure and document compliance with this clause post-award? Or is this clause, like many others, the Contracting Officer's authority to demand compliance if he/she suspects a firm is a pass-through?
The monitoring compliance with limitations on subcontracting is the responsibility of the contracting officer, SBA is committed to working closely with the Office.
Open full Question Details
After research, the following was found that in The Federal Register about the topic, there are the comments received on the proposed and the interim rule which was effective June 30, 2016.
SBA received several comments in response to its request for comments on whether prime contractors should be required to report to the contracting officer on their compliance with the limitations on subcontracting. Eight commenters supported mandatory compliance reporting, and five of those commenters recommended that the reporting be made at the end of the contract term. Three of the supportive commenters recommended compliance reporting on a quarterly or annual basis. Three commenters opposed mandatory compliance reporting because it would be too burdensome on small business concerns. One commenter suggested that SBA use its auditing and investigating authority to determine compliance rather than requiring contractors to report their compliance. Another commenter suggested that the only necessary compliance reporting should be made in the offer.
In addition to the requirement for a written agreement, SBA also proposed to require compliance reporting from small business concerns that rely on similarly situated entities to meet their performance obligations under a set aside contract. Notably, SBA did not propose to require compliance reporting from all small business concerns (i.e., firms that do not rely on similarly situated small business concerns to meet their performance obligations). Upon further review, SBA believes that this proposal would create a disincentive to utilize this new statutory authority. Compliance reporting was not required by the statute, and in fact, reliance on similarly situated entities to help meet their performance requirements actually makes it easier these firms to comply with their obligations. Moreover, requiring a prime contractor to report on compliance with the limitations on subcontracting when it uses one or more similarly situated entities could hamper flexibility for firms during contract performance. For example, a firm may initially intend to comply on its own, but may find during contract performance that it must rely on one or more similarly situated subcontractors to meet its performance obligations. In addition, a firm may intend to use one or more similarly situated entities to help it meet its performance obligations, but then may decide during contract performance that it will perform all of the required work with its own employees. These practical realities have led us to remove the compliance reporting requirement with respect to similarly situated entities. SBA may, in the future, propose a rule that requires compliance reporting from all small business concerns, not just those that rely on similarly situated entities. However, such a change would require notice and a request for public comment that is not part of this rulemaking.