Agree, but these other contracts have nothing to do with the new tender or with each other. The terms of a contract relate only to that contract. I guess you`re not talking about orders under id/IQ, because if the pennies are in the ID/IQ team, there`s no reason to make a team agreement for the new order, since the ID/IQ subcontract terms would apply So I heard about a new opportunity coming next year and I`m going to bring my team together. At this stage, there is no call for tenders, no project or other, so there are no FAR clauses to which it is possible to refer. And while I expect to do business with the government, the teaming agreement is a simple agreement between two commercial companies that must comply with the laws of the state (the states in force). Here`s a theory. FAR 52.203-6 is a contractual clause. It will not enter into force until the main contract has been awarded. And it only prohibits the limitation of the sale by the subcontractor of goods delivered “by the subcontractor under this contract or as part of a subsequent production contract”. It is therefore necessary that potential subcontractors are actually subcontractors. On the contrary, exclusivity is on the side of the implications of anti-dominant position and how our legal team interprets rules and regulations and avoids any perception of the attempt to offer Rig, create a monopoly or lose opportunities in the future because you are caught up in this exclusivity agreement. Mrs.Bad – you said, “but in many cases the proposed main contractor has already concluded other contracts, often with the same proposed subcontractor, which offers the same type of products/ services from delivery contracts. This FAR clause would therefore be in force under those other treaties.
Are we talking about exclusivity or confidentiality? I don`t think the two conflicts are any different. Mrs Bad, I think we can agree that we do not understand each other`s logic. You want to apply a clause in a contract to other unrelated contracts. I say that until the future PSR is an order under an existing vehicle, there is no link between the future PSR and the existing contract and, therefore, the terms of the contract do not apply. I think I have two questions that can be linked. First, why are team agreements containing the aforementioned language not prohibited by 52.203-6(a)? (Or are they?) Another good point that addresses a lot/most team agreements. However, my company often participates (for various reasons) as a subcontractor in requests for which it would be technically able to meet the entire requirement. Sometimes (if there is no exclusive teaming agreement), we even make proposals both as subcontractors. We also sometimes submit proposals as a main contractor with a subcontractor who would be technically able to respond to the entire call for tenders.
I am sure that our situation is not totally unique. The language of the teaming agreement I cited forbade the sub to respond to the invitation “independently or in relation to another party”. However, there are anti-dominant considerations that make legal advice indispensable when a company is considering entering into a team agreement. The team agreement therefore binds the submarine to the main network for the purpose of a competition where the submarine cannot compete independently and cannot offer its products independently….