Jump to content

Retreadfed

Members
  • Posts

    3,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Retreadfed

  1. Subk, look at 13 CFR 125.6(g) for the period over which compliance with the limitation on subcontracting will be judged.
  2. Annie, just to be clear, are you the prime contractor? If that is correct, you have used what you are calling a "BOA" to obtain what in essence is subcontract work?
  3. For those who are curious, here is what the new FAR clause on non-displacement of qualified workers 52.222-17 has to say on this: "An offer of employment will be presumed to be bona fide even if it is not for a position similar to the one the employee previously held, but is one for which the employee is qualified, and even if it is subject to different employment terms and conditions, including changes to pay or benefits." This clause was effective January 18, 2013.
  4. One more question, when did the work begin, and what year and type of funds will be obligated next month?
  5. LM, you said work started before funds were obligated on the contract. If the work started before the effective date of the contract, does the contract contain a pre-contract costs clause? If work started after contract award but before funds were obligated, does the contract contain an availability of funds clause?
  6. Are you asking about materiality for purposes of the CAS or materiality in general?
  7. BCH1995, I am curious as to what authority DCAA thinks it has to audit your subcontract. The government's (DCAA's) general audit authority is contained in FAR 52.215-2. Under that clause, DCAA only has the ability to audit FFP contracts and subcontracts to determine if defective pricing occurred. Even then, the right to conduct such audits expires three years after final payent on the contract or subcontract.
  8. jpaynehydroid, if the contract is only for licenses to commercial software, the Navy is prohibited from obtaining the licenses using a cost reimbursement contract. See FAR 12.207. Also, the acquisition of commercial software is described in DFARS 227-7002.
  9. Rodolfo, to recover consultant costs incurred in pursuing an appeal to the ASBCA, the contractor must meet the criteria stated in the Equal Access to Justice Act. If the contractor does not meet those criteria, the costs of the consultant incurred in pursuing the appeal are not reimburseable as an allowable cost in accordance with FAR 31.205-47.
  10. In regard to the question of how did DoD do what it did in regard to FAR Part 27, my recollection is that there is a statute specifically requiring DoD to have an IP policy that is different from that expressed n the FAR. In other words, the DFARS coverage in part 227 is mandated by law.
  11. Still, I cannot find it now, but there was an article on Doing Business Overseas in Contract Management magazine published by NCMA a few years ago. It has some pretty good practical tips on this subject.
  12. Pennybeth, Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) used by DoD are not subject to the FAR, however, I have seen OTAs that use FAR clauses.
  13. I don't know how your contracts or task orders are structured, but it is worth pointing out that the SCA does not apply to contracts that are not performed in the U.S.
  14. Gibson, the CAS Board has issued regulations defining what are CAS covered contracts and subcontracts. Under the CAS Board's rules, contracts are subject to the CAS unless they are exempt in accordance with the CASB's rules. Those same regulations require certain clauses to be included in contracts. Those clauses are required to be included in contracts and subcontracts unless a contract or subcontract is exempt from CAS coverage in accordance with the CASB rules. The clauses required by the CASB rules are FAR 52.230-2 through 5. (FAR 52.230-1 is a solicitation provision, not a contract clause.) The clauses mandated by the CASB's rules require contractors to comply with the applicable Standards and the contractor's disclosed or established cost accounting practices when performing CAS covered contracts. They do not require compliance with the CAS in regard to non-CAS covered contracts. FAR 52.230-6 is not a clause that was promulgated by the CASB. It is strictly a FAR clause. The prescriptive language for that clause states it is to be included in contracts that contain one of the clauses at FAR 52.230-2 through 5. If one of these clause is not properly included in the contract or subcontract, the contractor is not required to comply with the CAS and FAR 52.230-6 is not to be included in the contract or subcontract.
  15. What will be of interest to me will be to see if DCAA will publish the guidance required by sec. 832 in the Federal Register for public comment. If it does, this will be a first and may open the door for future publication of proposed CAM guidance.
  16. Deefarrd, note that the limitations on the JTR per diem rates are contained in the cost principles. They do not govern the costs a contractor can incur under an FFP contract. Further, for the costs the contractor incurs under a contract subject to the cost principles, the JTR per diem limits only apply to the per diem itself. Finally, please note that travel costs, e.g., airfare, are not subject to the per diem limitations. The per diem limitations only apply to the cost of lodging, meals and incidental expenses.
  17. Don, going back to your post #22, I don't think 15 U.S.C. 644(a) gives individual contracting officers or even individual contracting activities authority to use such a price evaluation preference. Note that it says "small-business concerns within the meaning of this chapter shall receive any award or contract or any part thereof . . . as to which it is determined by the Administration and the contracting procurement or disposal agency . . . to be in the interest of assuring that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for property and services for the Government in each industry category are placed with small-business concerns." To me, this indicates that whatever process is used to award contracts to small businesses must be established by the SBA and procuring agency, not individual contracting officers or offices. As to what playing field gmdubya is trying to level, congress has already determined how the procurement playing field is to be leveled by mandating full and open competition, unless another process is authorized by law. Further, the procedures to be followed in awarding contracts using full and open competition are those set forth in the FAR. In this regard, I do not see anything in the FAR that permits proposals to be evaluated differently for different classes of offerors unless such differing treatment is specifically authorized by law or a properly promulgated regulation such as the requirement to have a small business subcontracting plan.
  18. Writing more broadly to Vern's point, generally, you have discussed concepts that relate to arrangements between the government and a commercial entity. Why do you think those same concepts apply to arrangements between two commercial entities?
  19. Debra, the answer to your question is yes. Note that under 52.232-7, material is subject to the Allowable Cost and Payment clause. That clause requires contractors to submit an incurred cost proposal to establish final indirect cost rates at the end of each of the contractor's fiscal years. Also, 52.232-7 permits contractors to include indirect costs in the cost of material. If those indirect costs are allocated based on an indirect cost rate, that rate will have to be adjusted to an actual rate to avoid having a cost plus percentage of cost contract.
  20. Troy, for future reference take a look at FAR 7.103(n). It might be helpful going forward.
  21. Don, are you equating closure of a facility to conceal covert activities to deploy to Afghanistan immediately after 9-11 with a general shut down for Christmas Eve?
  22. Don, depending on the terms of the contract the contractor may have a claim for a constructive change. Also, I have seen contracts that contain clauses that address how the contractor is to treat costs caused by unexpected shut downs of government facilities. These clauses usually relate to events like snow days, but may be broad enough to cover Christmas Eve holidays. In addition to just looking at the WD, CSCM should look at the other terms of the contract to see if any address her situation. The real question for contractors in this circumstance is how to treat costs they incur as a result of the unexpected shut down. If the employees can perform work on other contracts, those labor costs would be charged to the other contracts. Some contractors place employees on enforced leave, while others have in house training. As a consequence, the costs of the shut down should be identified with what the employees are doing on that day if the contract does not have a clause addressing the shut down.
  23. CSCM, a question out of curiosity: were your employees working onsite at a government installation and denied access to the premises because of the government holiday?
  24. FedContractor, you say you have looked at 13 CFR 121. Have you looked at 13 CFR 121.404(g)? This seems to address your question as I understand it, however, I have to say that your scenario is not clear.
×
×
  • Create New...