Yes, we want the tester/client to sign the contract. Of course, it is a treaty; Contracts are not reserved for acquisitions. We want to make sure that the client uses it only for evaluation purposes; Post-assessment returns; Destroys all copies; Etc. We have an evaluation agreement that we use with commercial customers. Only the question of what the government can sign, since it is not a standard contract based on THE FAR. Our problem with the research organization I work on is that a program manager wants to accept a number of COTS software (otherwise available on the DoD Enterprise Service license and for which we would have to pay royalties) directly from the provider under a special licensing agreement, let`s call it their Techonolgy Demonstration Network, where our researchers provide feedback, but we use it for our clients every day in our research. The PM is basically upside down planning, he has the result of the desire for free software and will justify what it takes to get there. We (law and treaty told him no, but he doesn`t listen well). ji – good questions. These are issues that need to be resolved in the agreement. The contractor only wants feedback, so there would be nothing against restrictions on the use of the assessment. I agree that a derailment could be the next thing, and I would probably be a good model. Your agency`s authorities stand out in terms of grants/cooperation agreements to determine whether an agreement can be a vehicle for conclusion.
A bailing agreement could be a possibility — a sequence of blamons for the mutual benefit of both parties — the Bailor benefits by obtaining feedback and bailee benefits by obtaining free use of the chat. Would it be an increase in an agency`s endowments? I don`t know. Should government employees use their official service to evaluate private sector products? I don`t know. Who would give the feedback — the agency as an agency or the staff itself? I don`t know. Will the Bailor use the government agency`s comments in the advertising testimonials? I don`t know. Who, within a government agency, would willingly compel the Agency to be bound by state law? I don`t know. I`m just asking questions without giving an answer, but I hope it`s useful… Fara – With your last question, you`ve probably entered the world of “legal issues” if you continue to follow an acquisition under the FAR or an agreement according to the standards of the Federal Financial Aid Act and cooperation agreements. I say this for the reason that, in the case of FAR or the GCAA, there are probably appropriate guidelines, including case law, to draw reasonable conclusions about how to proceed, but even in these cases, counsel seems to be advisable. Situation: The contractor supplies commercial products. The contractor updates the software from time to time and sends to some customers to evaluate the products, using its standard evaluation agreement – no cost, use is how, back when the evaluation is completed, give feedback. Is there a reason why the government would not be able to sign the agreement, provided that nothing is inconsistent with federal law, such as compensation? Authority – No matter how you might follow the efforts, who has the authority within your authority to sign such an agreement.
Many might “think” they do, but do they really do? Bill, I was joking about Schultz. I love the picture! Can state law apply if it is not an acquisition? I don`t know, that`s why I`m asking.