Retreadfed

Check out a treatise on contracting such as Corbin or Williston. That should give you ample authority to support that proposition.

If travel is a part of the G&A base, G&A will be allocated to the contract to the extent travel is allocated to the contract. See FAR 31.203(d). Whether the allocated G&A is reimbursable depends on the terms of the contract.

Joel, Z said the contract was for commercial services. If the contract is a T&M contract, it is governed by FAR 52.212-4 Alt I which does not incorporate the cost principles from FAR Part 31.

Thanks.

A contractor never has to protest a procurement. However, I know in the Dryun case there were several protests following her conviction by contractors who had been victimized by her corruption. Although filed several years after the fact, the protesters only became aware of the basis for a protest after her conviction so the protests were timely.

Thanks for clarifying. I was going strictly from memories of events long ago.

Vern, how would your system handle those rare situations where the SSA acts unethically or criminally such as in the Darlene Dryun case or the situation that occurred years ago at DLA's Personnel Support Center in Philadelphia where the CO was demanding kickbacks from the winning contractor on competitive procurements? In the former case, as I recall there was no evidence that Boeing colluded with Darlene, while in the DPSC situation, the contractors clearly did collude with the CO.

Was this under a contract for commercial services?

Carl, what is the relevance of this to travel under a contract for commercial services?

No. FL said (s)he gathered data points on invoiced rates from comparable contracts. While the contracts may be "comparable" (whatever that means), we don't know if the labor rates from those contracts are a good comparator for the rates proposed by each of the 3 subs in question. For example, if the "comparable contracts" were performed by contractors in low cost areas of the country, you would expect the rates to be lower than those proposed by companies in high cost areas of the country. Therefore, just looking at invoiced rates from "comparable contracts" may not be a valid marker in this case. Consequently, using the criteria from 31.205-6 to judge the reasonableness of the compensation provided by the subs to their employees may be a more useful tool for judging the reasonableness of the proposed rates than invoiced rates from "comparable contracts." We don't know all the facts of FL's case, but maybe this is something that should be considered in order for him/her to get a warm fuzzy about the subs' rates.

Thanks, Don. You beat me to the punch. I asked a similar question on Wednesday, but have not received an answer yet.

By comparable contracts, do you mean contracts comparable to the prime or contracts comparable to each of the 3 subs? Because I presume we are talking about labor rates, have you looked at FAR 31.205-6(b) for the criteria for determining reasonable compensation for the subs' employees?

Negotiated cost savings may not be real cost savings because of the Limitation of Cost/Limitation of Funds clauses. At the end of the contract, a contractor may recover more costs than it originally proposed with the so called "cost savings" being illusory.

FL, have the subs' rates been audited by DCAA? If so, what was the result? Are these 3 subs also CPFF term subcontracts? On what basis do you base your conclusion that their rates are "extremely high"? Do you believe that the estimated cost you have been able to negotiate with the prime is fair and reasonable?

Zhukov, you said you include 52.212-4 ALT I in the contract. In regard to travel, ALT I says "The Government will reimburse the Contractor on the basis of actual cost for the following, provided such costs comply with the requirements in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(B) of this clause." That should answer your question as it states what requirements the travel cost must meet in order for it to be reimbursable. In accordance with ALT I, travel costs are not governed by the cost principles or any of the travel regs.

Read what is in the link formerfed sent. This is based on 13 CFR 125.6. That reg. clearly states that the LOS is determined by the dollars received from the government for the contract. Your ANC is blowing smoke in what it is telling you.

These are different things. For example, a contract may be funded by Army O&M funds. The O&M appropriation is the limiting factor, not the contract value.

You started off asking about quotes. An indemnification clause might be a significant factor in the quote otherwise the price would increase significantly. Acceptable indemnification clauses are not limited to the clauses in government procurement regulations. The parties can agree to a special indemnification clause so long as it is not open-ended and is limited to the availability of appropriations.

Are you talking about a Part 8 BPA or a Part 13 BPA? Also, why are you worried about hours for a BPA?

Why not? Do you think the government cannot agree to an indemnification clause that is not in a government procurement regulation?

Why does this seem backwards? Does something prohibit such an action?

If we are talking about a T&M contract, why do you think the cost principles apply to what costs can be included in the hourly rate?

Tony, how is this arrangement not a cost plus a percentage of cost contract? Can you clarify this statement? Are you talking about a cost reimbursement contract or some other type of contract? Also is FAR 52.222-43 in the contract?

Is there a government property clause in the contract? If so, what does it say about the consequence of the government changing the amount of GFP?

If the target price and ceiling price are different and the government has only obligated funds to cover the target price, is there already a clause in the contract that limits the government's liability to the target price? It seems strange that the government would include an amount you are entitled to be paid under the contract and not obligate funds to cover that liability. On what authority does the CO plan to unilaterally add the clause?