Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Why is the Govt so cliquish?

    Thanks. I just read the first case summary. I find the the administrative judge's decision to be irrational. What difference would it make if the PM got his knowledge, skills, and abilities in 5 years instead of ten, or gained in critical thinking skills via a path which included a degree or via another path? And, although the judge didn't spell out in his opinion exactly what the end product was to be (something to do with clean water or systems for making water clean), does it really matter if the PM has any qualifications, so long as the end product meets the Govt's needs (or is as specified in case the specifications don't align with needs).
  3. Except for the Wifcon Forums and Blogs Pages, the search engine is being replaced on the other pages of Wifcon.com. Since Wifcon.com contains hundreds of pages, the replacement process is being phased in with the Home Page replacement first.
  4. Missed Option but Have a J&A

    By not exercising the last option in a timely manner, the Government lost its unilateral right to extend the contract PoP at the prenegotiated price. This is the one undeniable consequence of what was administrative negligence. Since the contractor has tentatively committed to its original price for the option, you may issue a bilateral modification to exercise the option. A new contract is not required simply because the Government relinquished unilateral rights to the option.
  5. Yesterday
  6. Not a waste of time at all....The site is a great resource and I appreciate the input.
  7. Justice1: Nothing you related in your last post changed my mind. You are entitled to nothing for G&A during the period of voluntary performance unless the government decides to compensate you for the voluntary performance or a board or court forces it to do so. We don't have all the facts tbat we should have, but if you had an LOE contract and you delivered the stipulated LOE, albeit sooner than expected, then your obligation to perform was over, even though the period of performance had not expired. I am basing my conclusion on your description of the contract as obligating your company to deliver up to a stipulated level of effort. If your description is wrong or incomplete, then I might change my position based on the true facts. It may be that an attorney can persuade the government to agree, or can persuade a board or in court, that the government's acceptance of your work obligates it to pay you, in which case you should be able to get your G&A. You must consult an attorney to see what the chances are. Frankly, I think you are wasting your time here. You could get all sorts of opinions, none of which you would be in a position to evaluate. In any case, our opinions don't count. The only opinion that should count is that of a good government contracts attorney that you're paying for an opinion.
  8. Why is the Govt so cliquish?

    This is one of the most frequently used bits of the Protests Page. FAR 11.002 (a) (1): Requirements - Restrictive provisions
  9. On the indirect rate issue - Let me give a less rushed answer with additional information. As mentioned above, our provisional rate was based on expectation of more work (and therefore G/A base cost for direct labor) being completed during 2017. When we faced going at risk, we slowed our delivery to essential activity - specifically, most direct partial-fringe (hourly) employees that supported the contract were stopped (less G&A base)....then when the government felt forced to switch tactic to the early option execution, we stopped completed for a period of weeks while that process played out. During that time - no direct partial fringe (less G&A base) and the salaried direct employees either switched projects, took leave (increase to fringe) or conducted admin activities as appropriate (higher G&A pool / lower G&A base). The result is higher indirect rates than anticipated in the provisional - with the full CLIN level of effort already expended (based on belief that the additional funding was being added to the current option). The rate issue is less the direct cost for "voluntarily" performed LOE (which I appreciate all the previous input on) and more that the expectation of that additional (and preferably contractual) LOE had led to provisional rates that had to be adjusted upward when the Government changed course which we did not anticipate (as demonstrated by our going at risk in the first place). I welcome any other thoughts that might be relevant. Based on the feedback, we (with professional support) are going to be pushing the government to modify option period 1 despite the fact that option period 2 is now in place.
  10. Last week
  11. government recovery

    Fara, isn't that essentially what I described? Do you have the answer to your question?
  12. I do not think Justice1's company experienced a cost overrun. What happened was that the contractor completed the LOE two months before the period of performance expired. The company continued to work during the remaining two months, delivering additional level of effort without contractual coverage. The government had planned to buy additional LOE during the remainder of the period of performance, but balked for some reason, exercising an option early, instead. The contractor has not been paid for the extra work performed during the final two months. The result is that the contractor has not recovered some G&A costs incurred during the last two months of the period of performance. In my opinion, unless the government agrees or is forced to pay for the unfunded, voluntarily performed additional LOE, the company has no chance of recovering the last two month's G&A. The job was over after 10 months. This is what happens when people dealing with the government don't think and act contractually. You cannot deal with the government the way you deal with private sector firms, where much is done by handshake.
  13. The following is from training materials published online (https://www.google.com/search?q=G%26A+allocation+base&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS628US655&oq=G%26A+allocation+base&aqs=chrome..69i57.5439j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8): Selecting a G&A Base Background In general, Government contractors are constrained to use of three specific bases for allocation of the General and Administrative (G&A) costs of the organization. The bases are defined in Cost Accounting Standard 410 (48 FCR 9904.410), but are incorporated into the FAR in 31.203. First and by far the most common of the three is the cost input base, often referred to as Total Cost Input or TCI. With the TCI base, all costs that are not G&A and not statutory unallowables (such as interest or Federal income tax) are part of the G&A base. It is also the simplest of the G&A bases and usually (but not always) accepted by Government auditors without any real question. Second most common and growing in popularity is the Value Added G&A base. With this allocation base, material costs and certain subcontracts are excluded from allocation of G&A. Such costs may or may not be subject to allocation of other kinds of costs. Many firms using a value added G&A base collect the cost of purchasing, processing, and administering (but not managing) materials and subcontract purchases in a so-called Material Handling or Material & Subcontracts pool. These are often referred to as MH or M&S pools and the costs collected in such pools are applied to materials and subcontracts in lieu of G&A. The third and somewhat rare G&A base is called Single Element. It is sometimes also referred to as a single pool allocation because the methodology involves collection of all indirect costs in a single pool and allocation of those costs over a single cost element (such as labor). Such a pool would include everything from fringe benefits to facilities costs to bid and proposal costs. It is intended for use by very small services companies – usually on a manual or semi-manual system – as an administrative convenience. It is rarely approved by auditors and is therefore only seen primarily in firms prior to their first audited contract. The Government’s Position on G&A Allocation Bases In the regulation (FAR and CAS) and in the audit guidance (such as the Defense Contract Audit Manual or DCAM), the official position is that each company should use the allocation base for G&A that best reflects total business activity and, therefore, results in the most equitable allocation of G&A expense across all contract (both Government and commercial). In theory, the Government has no preference for one base over another so long as the resulting allocation is equitable. In reality, the Government has traditionally been heavily biased toward the TCI base and resisted efforts of contractors to change to the VA base. Recent Government regulation, however, has been aimed at making “excessive pass-through costs” unallowable on Government contracts. Translation – the Government really doesn’t want to pay for G&A on large subcontracts. (Please see separate whitepaper on Excessive Pass-Through Costs) This has resulted in a slowly shifting attitude towards use of the VA base for allocation of G&A expense. The new regulation on excessive pass-through costs has an exception in it specifically to allow the costs of Material Handling or Material & Subcontract rates. For this reason, many Government contractors currently using a TCI base are considering a switch to the VA base.
  14. If revenue means G&A base costs, that is a poor expression of what these terms mean. Revenue is income while costs are economic sacrifices. In other words, they are reverse concepts.
  15. If by "revenue" you mean G&A allocation base dollars, then that makes better sense to me. Thanks
  16. Sorry for the delay - We have billed our provisional rates. However, we updated our provisional rates with DCAA (and began using going forward once approved) in July based on the actual to date and new revenue assumptions (moved upward) based on the accelerated schedule. Because this additional revenue was expected with little additional G&A / overhead, it had the affect of pushing down the rates. Now with that revenue gone, as well as overhead / admin costs relates to this pushing us above estimates, the indirect rates are higher.
  17. government recovery

    Readers may want to check out the recent ASBCA decision in Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corp. (No. 61047. Oct. 3, 2017). It discusses an interesting argument between government negligence versus faulty contractor maintenance.
  18. government recovery

    Far-flung: this is not government property subject to 245-1 or 2. Vern, Retread: thanks. My initial thought had been a government claim, but could find nothing on that topic in my N&C materials. In addition, the only thing I could find in Part 33 was a statement in 33.206 that "The contracting officer shall issue a written decision on any Government claim initiated against a contractor within 6 years ...." I assume the CO issues a claim letter, the contractor responds, and the CO then issues a final decision?
  19. Yes. This. Also, the only reason that the LOE hours were burned faster than anticipated is because the contractor's labor was more expensive than anticipated. Either (a) the wages paid to direct-charging employees were higher than budgeted/bid, or (2) the indirect rates actually experienced were higher than budgeted/bid. (Or a combination of 1 and 2.) The story may well turn out to be that the small business didn't do a good job of forecasting indirect rates and actuals came in higher than anticipated (for whatever reason), which caused the LOE hours to be burned faster than planned. Happens all the time. Next question for Justice1: for purposes of complying with the Limitation of Cost/Funds clauses in your contract, did you use your provisional billing rates or did you use your YTD actual indirect rates or did you use a combination of YTD actual rates plus a forecast of where you expected those rates to be at year-end? One of those choices is wrong, one is right, and the other is kind of in the middle.
  20. Yes. I got that. I was just trying to be nice. Also thinking about other readers, who may be facing a situation closer to the one I described.
  21. government recovery

    In addition to what Vern wrote, unless the contractor and government entered into a deferment agreement, the government could collect the debt through offset on any contracts the contractor has with the government that do not include a no offset provision.
  22. Justice1, how did the additional expense cause your indirect rates to go up? Indirect cost rates usually work in the inverse to direct costs. Thus, if direct costs go up, indirect costs usually go down. Indirect cost rates should not be affected by revenue since they are based on costs, both direct and indirect.
  23. As we reach the halfway point of December, we have managed to escape any real signs of winter weather here in Lawrence. Our chances for a white Christmas may also be dwindling as the long range forecast is predicting sunny skies and zero precipitation. But I’m not complaining: bring on the sun and (relative) warmth, I say. As the holidays approach, there’s plenty happening in the world of government contracts. So if you’re an Eggnog fan (I’m not, but perhaps it’s an acquired taste), pour yourself a tall glass, sprinkle on some cinnamon, and enjoy this edition of the SmallGovCon Week in Review. This week, the Pentagon has delayed a much-discussed January 1 deadline for contractors to meet the NIST 800-171 standards, a bribery scheme involving a contract at the Hoover Dam has led to the indictment of a longtime former official for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Nevada, government contracts guru Larry Allen discusses how the recent emphasis on preventing sexual harassment may impact contractors, and much more. After knowingly disclosing confidential information to private companies bidding on contracts at Scott Air Force Base the Chief of Project Management has plead guilty to one charge of government procurement fraud. [The Telegraph] Larry Allen to discuss the recent rules regarding sexual harassment on Capitol Hill and takes a look at if contractors will be next to target sexual harassers. [Federal News Radio] A Pennsylvania man has been indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States through repeated bribes and contractor kickbacks related to a U.S. Army renovation project. [Daily Record] President Donald Trump signed a major government technology revamp into law Tuesday as part of the 2018 NDAA. [Nextgov] The GSA cannot proceed with the $50 billion Alliant 2 Unrestricted contract for IT services until the resolution of several protests. [Washington Technology] Ellen Lord, the DoD’s new undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics is requesting more “flexibility” to cut down the amount of cost and pricing data it requires companies to cough up when bidding on certain contracts. [Federal News Radio] The DoD intents to award a cloud computing contract next year that could disrupt the entire federal market. [Nextgov] The Pentagon will delay a January 1 deadline for all of its suppliers to meet a set of new regulations largely designed to better protect sensitive military data and weapons blueprints. [Nextgov] An ex-official for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Nevada has been indicted on federal charges for his alleged role in a bribery scheme involving a government contract at the Hoover Dam. [U.S.News] View the full article
  24. government recovery

    The CO would make a government claim against the contractor. If the parties couldn't settle the CO would issue a final decision demanding payment, which would create a contract debt, and the CO would commence collection procedures. See FAR Subpart 32.6. The contractor would then have to decide whether to pay or appeal to a board or to the Court of Federal Claims.
  25. help: It was a level of effort task order. What if the contractor delivered the full level of effort, but delivered it sooner than planned, which seems to have been the case? There was no shortfall in direct labor, but it was expended in less than a year. How if at all would that affect the contractor's argument?
  26. Vern is correct. That said, whether or not you can recover increased indirect rates allocated to in-scope work, in excess of funding, will turn on whether the rate increases were truly "unanticipated"--which is to say, a complete surprise. Given your scenario, I'm skeptical. I cannot see a connection between the situation you describe and an increase to indirect rates. The direct labor that you charged to the CLIN in excess of funding will still receive applicable indirect burdens. Consequently, I don't see how that "extra" labor is in any way connected to your increased indirect rates. Had you stopped work when you reached your funding limits, you might be on stronger ground, because then you could argue that your provisional billing rate calculations were based on a full year's worth of direct labor, and the resulting shortfall in direct labor led to higher indirect rates than originally calculated. But given your scenario, I'm not seeing it. Hope this helps.
  1. Load more activity
×