CO1559

If you would like to see a non-prescribed Key Personnel Clause with detailed requirements, take a look at the one you will find at this link: http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/PrimeContracts which takes you to the prime contracts page. Then scroll down to CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company, LLC (CHPRC); Click on "CHPRC Conformed Contract" Click on Section H, and then on clause H.15. Enjoy.

HSBaily: Can you provide additional details regarding DCAA's basis for questioning these costs?

Contractor procedures define FFP same as 16.202-1; and FP-EPA sane as 16.203-1

Prime contractor acquisition procedures require commercial item subcontracts to be FFP or FFP w/econ price adjustment. In addition, IQ subcontracts can be used if prices are established as FFP or FFP w/econ price adjustment.

I'm in a situation where I'd rather remain anonymous. Thank you Vern

I discussed this issue briefly with prime contract management; their initial reaction was disappointment, and to not fight it. This questioned cost will eventually wind its way to the cognizant ACO for adjudication. I'd change my moniker but I don't think that is allowed. I retired from the Fed about two years ago.

The Prime Contract includes a clause that states: "The Contractor shall maintain file documentation which is appropriate to the value of the purchase and is adequate to establish the propriety of the transaction and the price paid." Sorry that I did not bring that up before; thanks all for the input.

Thank you Vern, Joel and H2H for weighing in. This has been helpful, and my questions have been answered. Thanks Wifcon.

Thank you Retreadfed. The audit is of the prime contractor's contract administration, not the subcontractor's cost. For Wifcon I just provided a simple summary of what I found in the subcontract file; looks bad to me, and now I know that it doesn't look good to the prime contractor. As Joel mentioned above, put the onus on the prime. Thanks for the feedback here-to-help; and all others.

Thanks for the advice Joel, and thanks for reminding me to test and or support my findings against FAR 31.201-3 (a)!

Thank you C. There are no CLINs; I am working on behalf of the Government. The subcontract contains a changes clause. It was not invoked, nor was it documented. Thank you Joel, I agree. Thank you Joel. The contractor's acquisition policies and procedures define contract types. This one is a firm fixed price contract for commercial items. There is no quantity variation clause, there is no documentation of a change order, nor was the clause invoked. I have no problem with the contractor providing a list of services and respective costs, or a single dollar amount; this FFP subcontract was competed.

No, neither SOW, clause set or any other clause in the subcontract gives direction to submit a proposal, or for the prime to pay the sub per the incurred cost list.

A cost reimbursement prime contractor issues a fixed price services subcontract on the basis of commercial items. The price proposal was a list of estimated costs by type of service. The following changes clause is included in the subcontract: “Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties.” (FAR 52.212-4 is not included) Mid way through performance, subcontractor submits a revised price proposal. In response, the prime issued a modification increasing the fixed price IAW the revised proposal. There is no cost analysis and no mention of invoking the changes clause. However, the bilateral modification stated: “authorizes additional $X,XXX to cover costs of additional lodging, per diem and taxes for XX additional participants.” At end of performance, subcontractor submits a final list of incurred cost. The prime issues a modification increasing the price to align with the final incurred cost. The subcontractor does not have an approved accounting system. Is it correct to question the value of the aforementioned price increases? Is it correct to characterize this situation as converting a fixed price contract to a cost reimbursement type? Thank you!

Thanks; the finding has been stricken from the report.

An internal auditor reviewing company education benefits (FAR 31.205-44), questioned certain tuition fees as entertainment (31.205-14). The auditor questioned $999 as expressly unallowable under the entertainment cost principle (FAR 31.205-14) as follows: $698 for Service and Activities Fees: The fee funds student activities and programs as allocated by student led committees. $201 in student union building fees: The fee funds social engagement aspects of student life, and are not essential to obtainment of training/education. $100 for student orientation fee: Funds cost of a t-shirt, meals and other giveaways. I considered these questioned cost to be unfounded, assuming that they are mandatory fees. Therefore I called the University admissions office and verified that the subject fees are mandatory and included in the tuition payment. In addition, the admissions office told me that the "student activities and programs" cover tutoring among other things that are not entertainment. I recommended to the IA manager that the costs are allowable because if a person is to be admitted to this university then the person must pay these fees which are wrapped up in the tuition charge and she agreed with me and reversed the auditor. I decided to post this as FYI and/or sanity check because I have never seen anyone pick apart education cost and sort out what might be deemed as entertainment. Thanks