Cajuncharlie

The path I was told does not solve the problem. My belts and suspenders solution does. What happens when one objects to gratuitous insults on WIFCON? More gratuitous insults.

Unfortunately many of us must operate in an imperfect world and work on a practical basis. When one looks at a question and answer and firmly believes, with sound precedent and confirmed by advice of competent counsel, that no change to the RFP is involved, but loses in a mini-trial anyway, in the future one does what one must to protect oneself and one's client, regardless of unwarranted accusations of laziness, unsound thinking, and poor practice. It would be more useful to describe a path out of such a quandary than throw rocks from an ivory tower that is far removed from the real world in the trenches.

I have seen a prime contractor burned by its own "entire agreement" clause and the parol evidence rule after trying to hold a subcontractor to Q&A that were not incorporated by amendment. The prime had good reason to believe that the areas covered by the Q&A were quite clear in the solicitation and did not constitute a change. ADR resulted in a different conclusion, contrary to the prime's well-researched precedent and reasonable expectations. Since then I have avoided that kind of problem by making Q&A part of Section J. This sort of thing makes me glad again to be on the contractor side where, within the broad confines of our purchasing system, we are free and indeed expected to use best practices based on lessons learned, rather than constrained by overly restrictive guidance. Why leave something open to misinterpretation, even when it does not constitute a change, when it can be easily be nailed down by well-considered answers made a formal part of the solicitation and resulting contract?

My answer was based on an allocation base that is properly reflected in the cost codes to which time is charged.

To avoid this problem, whenever I could I would label the CLIN price "Estimated" and the total "Not to Exceed." Unfortunately, that's not always possible.

If the timekeeping portion of your accounting system has enough granularity for an employee to allocate his time between project cost codes, there should be no problem. Some weeks I used to charge my time to 3 dozen or so different cost codes, using the mantra, "Charge where you work, and work where you charge."

I for one took a big hit early in my career for buying Olivetti typewriters when the requester asked for IBM Selectric without justification. Would I do it again? Probably, but first I would let the end user know where it was headed and what might be done to change the outcome, such as going over my head.

Joel, as we say in New Orleans, "Yeah, you' right!".

I have felt this pain often, although not in the space technology industry. The way the cycle goes is you win a contract based on your belief that you can work smarter and leaner than the incumbent, you get mobilized and settled in, you think you're doing OK, then you realize your margins are nowhere near where they need to be, but you tough it out, do the best job you can for the client with the resources you have, you work the numbers for the re-compete, and you lose to somebody who believes he can work smarter and leaner... The only fix I have seen for an incumbent is to put heavy spin doctoration into your re-compete proposal, avoid reliance solely on your numbers, and make sure your proposal stresses all the times you have exceeded customer expectations, includes all the testimonials you can gather, and shamelessly toots your horn in an attention-grabbing, almost a comic book style, format that emphasizes your discriminators and is easy for the busiest source selection people to digest.

The best answer would be whatever the person in charge, or your two GS-14s, have observed as areas needing attention. From an outside perspective, however, not knowing your mission or people, I would suggest going back to basics, starting with the two fundamental things every file should be clear on, regardless of whether you're in the Government or purely private sector: Why did you pick this source, and why is the price OK? Source selection and price reasonableness can have many facets and nuances, and your in-house training can focus on whichever aspects meet your needs.

Good update, but please bear in mind that not all who read or post here work under DFARS. Also it is prudent for contractors (and subs) to make it as easy as possible for the Government (or a sub's prime customer) to digest and approve a proposal, as indicated in Vern's last paragraph of post #3 as a best practice.

DC, please bear in mind that the OP was about a non-competitive sole source proposal. In that situation, there is a big difference between a contractor's view of what is logical and sensible, and compliant. See the compliance requirement in post # 12 above. For competitive proposals, you would usually not owe the Government a proposal formatted IAW Table 15-2, and therefore not owe them the statement of conformity with FAR 15.403( b )( 1 ), so as a general rule you would be good to go with your logical and sensible approach.

Were the subcontract changes driven by changes in the scope of the prime contract that would fall under the prime contract Changes clause, or was there some other situation that is covered by another prime contract clause that would entitle the prime contractor to an equitable adjustment?

Are we still allowed to say TINA? Or must we say Truthful Cost or Pricing Data? Imho the people who foisted these new names on us should have kept the old names, unless they are deliberately trying to confuse us. I plan to stick with TINA.

JPH, suggest you search WIFCON discussions for flowdowns. We have gone through this subject in detail already.