Beantown_Contracts

Non-commercial modifications to commercial items are NOT exempt from requirement for certified cost or pricing data if they exceed the TINA threshold or 5% of the total price of the contract. (Further amended in FY 2008 NDAA to add “. . . at the time of award”). [see also FAR 15.403-1(c)(3)(iii)]

Vern, The original work was Commercial Item as defined in FAR Part 2.101, however, the USG later directed a modification to the Commercial item. The value of this modification exceeds the 5% threshold for "minor" modifications to a commercial item and is well in excess of 700k, thereby triggering TINA. V/R

Background: Defense contractor is providing services and products under "Commercial" definition via FFP subcontracts. Currently, the Finance/Accounting system is not set up to accurately provide direct and indirect rates for cost plus contracting. (GL doesn't notate unallowables) An accounting type has created what are believed to be reasonably accurate DCAA-like rates. (insert reaction here) Current situation: Bidding via a prime to provide Modified versions of a Commercial item. Modification exceeds $700k (90% labor). DoD Contracts Specialist requests labor detail for cost justification. I VERY clearly & repeatedly state in both verbal and written form that we can only provide DCAA-like rates, as noted above. Since our DCAA-like rates exceed our standard published commercial labor rates by 10%+ resulting in a cost type proposal exceeding the price proposal by 10%+, the Specialist signs off. Problem: DoD Contracts Specialist requests that I sign a TINA cert. Morally, I have no issue with signing off on our FFP proposal price, based on our Commercial labor rates. Given that our DCAA-like rates were provided merely to provide a rough estimate against our commercial labor rates, the accuracy, or lack thereof, should not give me pause. Correct? Thank you. BC

Sir, Thank you for all that I learn everyday. Since stumbly upon Wifcon many years ago, I've referred dozens of colleagues, subcontractors, and clients to this site to improve their knowledge of our profession. My thanks to the learned contributers whose opinions, examples, and corrections make this an invaluable resource to those who strive to do our best. V/R, Beantown Contracts

Don, Thank you for the question. Customer is requesting labor rate build up. The Subk is not set up to provide accurate direct and indirect rates. The labor rates are on a published price list with substantial commercial type sales to affirm commerciality. V/R, B_C

Situation: A small business subcontractor is submitting a proposal in excess of $7.5m to a large DoD prime. The SB subcontractor will be asserting commerciality on this FFP proposal. Prime is demanding a DCAA compliant costing submission. (redacted to them, unredacted to the DoD customer) Given that the subcontractor is: a) a small business (CAS exempt) and submitting a Commercial (2.101), does the Prime or the DoD customer have the right to demand a DCAA compliant costing submission. Responses appreciated. B_C

Jim, By this logic, would they shut off a card from use at the same gas station if use exceeded $3k? By definition, each toll is an individual transaction.

Navy, thank you for your confirmation.

Statement of facts: Assume a NAICS code size standard of 1,000 employees. Current sum of all entities is less than 1,000. Holding company provides corporate services only and allocates costs to subsidiaries. Four subsidiaries, each an incorporated entity for legal and accounting purposes. #1 Provides commercial products and services. May 'sell' product or services to subsidiaries via subcontract. #'s 2-4 are under DCAA cognizance. Question: Would one roll-up the number of employees to the holding company (as I expect), or could each entity be said to stand alone? Thank you for your feedback.

I see no reply, yet, I have a similar question. Our CO is requiring $ values in our SmallBizSubK plan under a multi-year IDIQ. I strongly prefer to insert percentages as this is most accurate. By definition, dollar values would be of no real value. Thanks for any response.

All, tx for the unanimous replies. Unfortunately, they run counter to the wishes of the Contracting Officer, and I will (because he holds the $$) provide a cert. That said, I have also, in a gentle, academic sort of way, referred him to the actual FAR requirements. BC

If one has an active $1m+ contract (DoD, R&D, CPFF) in place, would a new Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data be required for a $200k mod? My reading of FAR 15.406-2 indicates, that, YES, once the contract (generally over $650k) requires the Cert, any mods relating to funds (+ or -) would require a Cert. Appreciate any responses. thank you.