Retreadfed

I don't understand this. Do you mean that 31.205-46 says that the cost of staying at an Airbnb is unallowable?

Where does the memo say it applies to contractors?

What do you mean by this? Doesn't contract type and the terms of the contract determine if this statement is true in all circumstances. For example, look at FAR 52.212-4 Alt I.

The travel cost principle, including the portion of the government travel regulations cited there, does not limit contractor employees in regard to where they may stay while in a travel status. Thus, there is no regulatory restriction on contractor employees staying at an Airbnb. Airbnb operates on a rental basis. If the employee pays for a rental while on covered travel, the employee has incurred a lodging expense. If the contractor reimburses the employee for that cost, the contractor has incurred a lodging expense subject to the travel cost principle. As long as the daily rental cost and M&IE expenses do not exceed the daily per diem amount for the locale, I see no reason why it should not be allowable.

One thing that has not been discussed is what appropriations will be used to pay for the travel and the impact the bona fide needs rule has on the use of those funds. Also, does the travel fall under the severable or non-severable services rule? Without more facts than we have been provided, any discussion of these issues would be based on pure speculation and conjecture.

OK, so you and the contract recognize that the requirement that contracts are to be awarded using full and open competitive procedures does not apply to orders issued against an IDIQ contract.

What do you mean by this?

I don't think this is unusual. When there is a vacancy in an appointee position, a career civil servant will frequently be appointed to act in that position. When an appointee is confirmed, the careerist will return to some permanent career position. So my question is where will she go next?

Without seeing all the terms of the contract, it seems that if the contractor is required to incur the cost to prepare and submit a proposal, they should be paid for it. Why do you think an advance agreement is necessary here? Isn't the contractor incurring costs in accordance with the terms of the contract? How are the task orders priced?

More sarcastic.

Looks like she has a lot of procurement experience.

This is where you can really get in trouble. Remember, only the contracting officer can bind the government. There have been several contractors who got burned by listening to what "program office" personnel told or promised them.

If you are a contractor, why are you concerned about how the government is handling this contract? Federal fiscal law, e.g., the Anti-Deficiency Act, the Purpose Statute, etc., is aimed solely at government personnel.

ConMan411, you talk about task orders being issued with their own funding and at the same time you talk about incremental funding at the contract level. What type of contract do you have, e.g., IDIQ, requirements, etc.? Why do you have funding at the contract level and task order level? I'm confused.

At what level is the property that will be needed to perform identified? Does the contractor identify government property it will need to perform the IDIQ or is the identification made at the order level or is it a combination of both?

Have you read FAR 31.202 and 203? Also, is not suffering a loss more important than staying out of jail?

I checked two sources showing the text of the NDAA and they both show that 805 specifically references only 52.243-4. Maybe I am off, but that is what I am finding.

The Changes clause mentioned in the law is for construction.

Look at Section 805. Who is advising these people?

Wifwaf, I don't know if it is still a problem, but one of our biggest problems was cleaning up the mess that PCOs made of their contracts. Many times it seemed that they didn't care or didn't know what clauses they put in contracts, but thought that the ACO would figure out what was applicable and administer the contracts accordingly. Throw that on top of having to deal with DCAA auditors who thought it was their sacred duty to protect the Treasury from raids by contractors, who were all deemed to be a bunch of brigands out for loot, and you have a real problem.

Wifwaf, I worked for DLA when CAS was part of its mission. I always thought we placed too heavy a burden on our contract administrators. Your workload was not unusual in my time, but it is and was too much. This caused the cynics in the agency to take the expression "work smarter not harder and do more with less" and say when taken to its logical conclusion you can do everything with nothing.

Depending on the clauses in your contract and the facts of the case, there are several different answers to your question. For example, the contractor might be entitled to more money because of a stop work order, government delay of work or a change order, either actual or constructive. On the other hand, the contractor may not be entitled to more money because of an excusable delay. Based on the few facts you have given, I don't think an informed response can be given.

In theory, but the contractor's decision is always subject to second guessing by DCAA.

GC, hopefully what you have been told above demonstrates the necessity for precisely defining what you mean by "carrying costs" because such costs have to be allowable under the cost principles of FAR 31.2. If you cannot define the costs, I don't see how you can determine their allowability.

GC, H2H provided you with some advice that you should consider. Further, remember, that you have a cost reimbursement contract. That means the costs you incur and claim for reimbursement from the government must be an allowable cost. If you agree to include an unallowable cost in a price adjustment to the FFP subcontract, assuming the adjustment is warranted, the government may reduce the amount it reimburses you for your subcontract costs.