Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

rae.story

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rae.story

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. PepeTheFrog; Now wouldn't I be a foolish peasant to act upon the guidance of a frog? While I understand that every situation is different, and thoughts and opinions are subjective to interpretation, I like to read other's insights. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond.
  2. I'd like to gather other's thoughts & opinions regarding the perception of the following scenario and whether or not the appearance of general affiliation exists and whether or not there are any ethical concerns? Company A had an employee who left approximately 3 years ago to start his own company, Company B. Company B is in the same line of work as Company A; Company A & Company B employ two (2) of the same employees (both employees provide contract support to Company A, while both employees provide security administration support to Company B); While Company A has been approved to be a Mentor, a Mentor-Protege arrangement between Company A & Company B has yet to be finalized by the Government; Company B does receive approximately 70% of its income from Company A.
  3. Cross Charging (Comingling of Contracts) as defined by the DoD IG's Office reads: Dishonest contractors can submit multiple bills on different contracts or work orders for work performed or expense incurred only once. A contracting official can facilitate the scheme and share in the profits by writing similar work orders under different contracts and accepting the multiple billings. (Source: International Anti-Corruption Resource Center, 2014) Fraud indicators related to cross charging (comingling of contracts) include, but are not limited to: Multiple awards for similar work are given to the same contractor. The contractor submits several invoices for the same or similar expense or work under different jobs or contracts. The contractor submits the same or similar documentation to support billings on different contracts. Similar work orders are issued to the same contractor under more than one contract. Contractor receives multiple awards for similar work. Frequent errors/corrections of errors on invoices and other documents. Contractor costs on fixed priced contract are unusually low. Costs on the cost plus contract are considerably higher than those expected or budgeted. Same employee billed to more than one job for the same time period. Whereas, Industry defines cross charging as companies filling various fixed-price and cost-plus contracts simultaneously. While sometimes, shifting the costs and expenses associated with fixed-price contracts to a cost-plus contract in order to increase their profit. Based on the DoD IG's definition, one could interpret that that it would not matter what type of contract it is. Thus, could the following be deemed as cross charging? Is the following actually allowable? Company ABC identified one specific employee on three (3) separate proposals while proposing that said employee would be providing 3/4 of his time (1,410 hours) on the first contract and 1/4 of his time (470 hours per contract) on each of the second and third contracts. The Government awards all three contracts to Company ABC on a firm-fixed-price (FFP) basis for the delivery of services and the company submits fixed monthly invoices per contract.
  4. rae.story

    Travel

    here_2_help, Greatly appreciate your insight and thoughts, as many of the concerns you expressed crossed my mind. Thank you again. Rae
  5. rae.story

    Travel

    Vern; The prime is requesting. I've received word from two others who have indicated that while it is unusual, some of the larger companies do this for buying power purposes with airlines, rental car companies, hotels, etc. and to save on paying the G&A on the subs travel costs. Essentially being viewed as a cost savings to the Government.
  6. rae.story

    Travel

    I was hoping I could pick someone's brain, as I wanted to confirm as to whether or not there is some federal or accounting principle that would prevent the following or if there are any ramifications that I may not be aware of? Long story short, we are a Subcontractor to a contract in which the Prime is requesting to handle all travel for our employees. From making arrangements, to reimbursing and/or paying the employee. The CLIN associated with travel was awarded on a cost reimbursable basis not-to-exceed $350k. Not sure if it's such a big deal but logically it just doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is that should we ever be audited by DCAA, that the question would be raised of why the Prime elected to handle and issue a purchase order strictly for labor. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and expertise. Rae
  7. Government has released an RFP with a 100% SDVOSB set-aside. The Government has stipulated they anticipate awarding the contract strictly on a FFP basis where all Offerors will be responsible for including all costs associated with travel and ODCs into each of the specific CLINs. Does the 50 percent that is required to be performed by the SDVOSB Prime consists of only labor or is it inclusive of all costs (labor, travel, and ODCs) as a result of how the Government is anticipating on awarding the contract?
  8. Joel; No, the verbiage was not included in the solicitation. However, the following response was provided by the Contracting Office at the time Q&As were being answered. Question: The contract will be awarded as a FFP with reimbursable ODCs for a Base Year plus two Option Years. Is it the intent of the Government to pay the entire FFP at the start of the contract or in equal monthly amounts over each of the periods of performances? If equal amounts should the SUPPLIES/SERVICES be identified as "LABOR," the QUANTITY be 12, and the UNIT be Month? Answer: The Contractor will be authorized interim delivery payments on the basis of 1/12 the CLIN value per month or the value of conforming services performed, whichever is lesser for the FFP CLIN(s). For Travel, the Contractor may invoice not more often than monthly for costs incurred. Due to the design of the Army's entitlement system, GFEBS, any payment made on a variable and/or reoccurring basis, such as services and cost reimbursable line items must use the unit of measure "Job." I was clearly under the impression that a FFP contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment unless otherwise stipulated? Appreciate the insight!
  9. Vern; Appreciate you setting me straight. However, does the Contracting Office have the authority to place such verbiage into the contract which limits the Contractor not to invoice regardless if labor associated with the contract is on a FFP basis?
  10. Greatly appreciate anyone who doesn't mind taking some time to provide confirmation regarding the following. We recently were awarded a contract, where labor is on an FFP basis and travel is on a CR basis. Upon review of the contract, it was discovered that the Contracting Office inserted the following verbiage under Section G - Contract Administration Data, "The contractor is authorized partial delivery payments for services, CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 under this contract. The Contractor may, not more often than monthly, invoice the lesser of 1/12 the total CLIN price or this amount minus the value of any non-conforming services. Specifically, the Contractor shall not invoice for the value of any services not performed due to uncompensated and otherwise unmitigated employee absences impacting services such as leave without pay, extended military leave, and position vacancies." For the underline to be binding, mustn't FAR 52.216-4 (Economic Price Adjustment - Labor and Material) be incorporated by reference into the contract? Thank you in advance for any assistance.
  11. What are the rules governing the timeline a Contracting Office has to respond to questions submitted by Offerors pertaining to an RFP prior to the proposal submission due date? Is there a specific FAR clause that specifies a duration? Scenario: Proposal due date: 10 December 2013 Questions were due: 18 November 2013
  12. I am attempting to validate as to whether or not a Prime, if awarded a FFP contract, may issue a FFP-LOE SubK knowing the work that is to be performed by the subcontractor will exceed the $150k limitation per FAR 16.207.3 (Limitations of firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contracts)? Thank you in advance for your time.
  13. The COLA percentage is based on the Country & Post the individual is being assigned to. COLA is then derived by taking that percentage and multiplying it by the annual spendable income by salary and family size (http://aoprals.state.gov/Content/Documents/SpendableIncome.pdf). Example: The COLA percentage for Japan, Okinawa is 35%. For an individual who earns $92,000 and has a family size of 3, you would take $38,700 and multiply this by 35%. So, in a nutshell and in addition to obtaining their salary of $92,000, he/she would also rate $13,545 in COLA.
  14. A contract is yet not in place, however the solicitation states, "Personnel stationed overseas in support of this task will be eligible for "as available" services pursuant to their SOFA status and will be eligible for Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) at the permanent location." I gather it would behoove me to reach out to the Contracting Office and ask the question.
×