Part 2: Determining Flowdowns
You are now a Subcontract Administrator for the Contractor that was awarded the USAF Enterprise Network contract as a result of the solicitation in Part 1 above (disregard any “revolving door” or Procurement Integrity Act implications).
Your company is a large business and has the qualifications to do almost all of the work, but must subcontract out for a small subset of specialized support. Therefore, you are tasked to prepare a draft Subcontract Agreement that must include any necessary flowdowns from the USAF prime contract. Your company has decided that a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) subcontract is appropriate for this subcontract, regardless of the prime contract type. The relevant parts of the prime contract are attached.
- Use this form to complete the flow downs: Form to Complete Flowdowns
- Using the “track changes” feature of Word/Wordperfect (preferred) or handwritten redlines (scanned for submission) identify which, if any, provisions you would not flow down (e.g., delete) and,
- If applicable, identify and discuss how some of those provisions that you would flow down need to be modified.
- Use the “Comments” function [Review>>Comments] to provide rationale for why or why not. You may also write a separate summary of your changes.
Rubric Name: Written Assignment (36%)
|CriteriaComments reflect a highly accomplished level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurate, thorough, and soundly reasoned conclusions.(11.34 – 12.6)Comments reflect an excellent level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in accurately reasoned conclusions.(10.08 – 11.33)Comments reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning.(8.82 – 10.07)Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions.(7.56 – 8.81)Comments reflect an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.(0 – 7.55)Presents exceptionally well-supported arguments or positions with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.Presents excellent arguments or positions that are mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts.Satisfactory arguments or positions are presented but there is a mix of opinion or unclear view with supported arguments using course readings. Case study facts are occasionally used but arguments would be much stronger with use of facts.Arguments are frequently illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings.Arguments lack meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements responding completely to each aspect of assignment including minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format.(4.86 -5.4)Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.(4.32 – 4.85)Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.(3.78 – 4.31)Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.(3.24 – 3.77)Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.(0 – 3.23)Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No errors found. No contractions or jargon used.(3.24 – 3.6)Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.(2.88 – 3.23)Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.(2.52 – 2.87)Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. More than 10 errors found.(2.16 – 2.51)Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count.(0 – 2.15)No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.(1.62 – 1.8)Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.(1.44 – 1.61)Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 times in document.(1.26 – 1.43)Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 4-5 times; or presents only 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper that requires APA citations throughout the document.(1.08 – 1.25)No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.(0 – 1.07)Overall Score|