schickson

Thank you Retreadfed. I am within the DoD, and am aware of the PGI guidance. The actions contemplated deal with FMS and thus typically far exceed those amounts in either regard. My known (and rather large) hurdle will be dealing with DoDD 5105.36 and DoDI 7600.02 which direct/require DoD Agencies to utilize DCAA unless a waiver is granted by OAIG APO, IG DoD. I'm hoping enough folks from outside DoD (within DoD would be a real pearl though) will reply with success stories and I in-turn can use this in satisfying the boss that we can expect at least as good a support from private CPA audits (in the interim until DCAA acquires sufficient manning to handle the workload within a reasonable amount of time). I think the answer is obvious, but I'd like the actual dialogue to support our case file.

I was reviewing a website of a world-wide renowned CPA firm and they indicated on their website that they have performed for Dept of State, Interior, Justice, and the VA. Several well-known firms have GSA contracts and the rates for a CPA were less than what we "pay" DCAA per hour. Obviously DCAA's rates include everything, whereas private firms add travel and other ODCs, etc., but hey, if they are able to complete an audit in 2-3 months versus DCAA's 4-6 months AND perhaps provide more bang for the buck service, response, info-wise; I'm trying to find out why more of the Government is not going this way. I suspect funding issues are a major issue.

Since DCAA's audit timelines are stretching further and further, is anyone reading this in the Federal Government using private CPAs such as Price Waterhouse Coopers, etc., to perform audits of contractor proposals? If so, please share your experience and any suggestions. Thanks

Thanks to all of you for your imput.

You're right, this really isn't that big of a deal--I was hoping for a quick sanity check on my approach in contract formation. The original question really had little if anything to do with competition, but more with suggestions on how to set up the contract for the easiest administration over the life of the contract. It is A/E and I will be negotiating with only one contractor (hopefully). My customer has since confirmed that the extra hours needed from time to time are in fact not "overtime" hours, but rather additional labor for unexpected situations. Unfortunately, these unexpected situations range significantly year-to-year, so I'm leaning away from having the contractor propose on an estimated amount of extra labor hours plus/minus a certain percent (with variation in quantity provisions) and leaning toward the separate L/H CLIN as originally proposed. Thanks again to all.

Not missing anything. I'm trying to determine the best, least administrative way to handle the extra, "outside" hours (see my previous post for more detail). For the "unit-priced line items" for extra hours, I'm considering: CLIN 006; As-Needed Labor Hours As Directed by The CO (Other Than Included in CLINS 001-005) CEILING: $20,000/YR In accordance with contract clause xxxx. Clause: Something to the affect that the Gov may direct work outside the normal duty hours and payment will be made at the wrap rates included in the contract for the specific labor type and quantity directed. The ceiling price would be addressed, with a provision that it would be changed from ceiling to actual at the end of the period, etc.

Thanks Vern. I see your point. I guess what I'm really thinking of would be a CLIN for hours outside the normal routine work called for under the base/option year(s), (not OT per the def of FAR 2.1). Perhaps a more appropriate explanation would be a FP contract could have two types of CLINs, one for routine inspection work M-F, 8-5; and another for work required outside the M-F, 8-5. For the "outside" work (involves only labor), I'm thinking a LH CLIN would work better than writing the contract as an IDIQ contract. The CLIN would be incrementally funded and the contract would specify the procedures for the Gov to direct the contractor to work the "outside" effort. The contract would contain wrap rates for labor and the Gov would pay for the "outside" labor directed/authorized to be performed in accordance with the contract. The contract could even have a ceiling for "outside" work and that ceiling amount would be changed to a firm amount annually at the end of the period. I guess I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too by limiting the administrative process as much as possible while staying within the legal confines of CICA, etc. I could have a standard servie contract for M-F, 8-5, but then if work were needed above this, it would be a new requirement and modifying the contract to add the work would be subject to CICA. I could add into the RFP/contract language an expected amount of "outside" work with a variation in quantity clause--this would allow relatively smooth work unless the estimates were incorrect the now were either paying the contractor for work they are not doing, or modifying the contract to increase the value because we busted the VIQ limits. Optionally, I could write an IDIQ contract, or I could write a cost-type contract. I'm sure there are other options as well--what I'm looking for is advice on which approach would work the best for my simplistic example, and why. Thanks to everyone for their ideas and suggestions.

hey... I thought I proposed that approach in the first place...

FAR Fetched- Would you (from the contractor stand point) rather that scenario, or a FFP contract with a basic CLIN for recurring services and an additional Labor Hour CLIN funded specifically for Gov-directed OT against wrap rates and COTR authority to direct as needed up to the amount of funding/ceiling on the OT CLIN? I think this process is better because you may have OT work under the base contract that is required because of other areas within your control that didn't get done. This will allow separation between OT that you require because of internal issues vs OT that we require based on government requirements.

No. Worked well was in quotes because although the contract was FP, it apparently was treated like a CP--don't ask further, I'd have to lie Something about having a clause in the contract (FAR 52.222-2) listing a ceiling for OT--the customer requesting the ktr to work--the contractor working and invoicing for the extra dollars--the CO approving the invoices and then getting money and modifying the contract every few months or so to increase the value by the OT hours. (no, I'm definitely not the CO; they're gone).

Considering that option too. It's just that the OT seems to be sporadic and inconsistant. I think we'd end up either paying too much (lack of OT) or modifying the contract to adjust later. Still--a tried and true process.

Thanks H2H. The OT issue is only a small part of the overall contract. It has taken quite a leap of faith to get the customers to agree to anything but a CPAF mindset, even for our routine services. They like the belly-button option of Cost type contracts and are very reluctant to go FP. I may strive for a FP IDIQ, but I'm not going back....

Thinking futher about allowing the contractor's proposal (and perhaps FFP award price) to include a certain amount covering OT based on historical use; what if the COTR (GOV) directs too much OT (in the ktr's opinion)? I suspect modification or claim would be the outcome? How could you write the contract to preclude this--thus my thought of a LH CLIN for OT. Other thoughts?

That was my first thought, and still viable... but I'm looking for better options.

We're forming a new FP Engineering Services contract with a base and 4, 1-yr options--the contract is more for inspection services. Customer/management do not want an IDIQ contract (a FP contract with option years has "worked well" for years). Situation: Occasionally, the customer needs the contractor to work overtime providing inspection, etc.,. I'm looking for a way to write the new contract which will allow both routine monthly services plus an avenue to authorize and pay for overtime without negotiating a modification on this FP contract. I'm thinking a L/H CLIN funded specifically for OT, with labor wrap rates in the contract used to pay against. The customer would request the OT and the CO would direct the contractor to perform against the LH CLIN a certain amount of hours within the pool of funds on the contract for this purpose. Any better ideas or thoughts for further consideration?