Jakemx56

I could see this being a very good thing.... I cant find anything that forbids it so in my mind the FAR is silent so it gives the ability to fund the project....

24 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

I have some familiarity with this situation from the contractor's side. In our case the customer wanted actuals in order to develop its internal estimate for a future solicitation (so TINA requirements didn't play into the discussions). In each and every case, we ended up providing the actuals. At the end of the day, it was a relationship decision and the relationship trumped other considerations.

The only remaining issue was that, since the prior award was FFP, the actuals were not structured/organized as the customer wanted to see them, making the customer's analysis more difficult than it had anticipated. To be very clear, that was not intentional; it was the natural consequence of the original contract type. But the end result was a frustrated customer, which was the result we had wanted to avoid.

I completely understand that costs are tracked differently in an FFP environment and will not be organized in a typical fashion and I would be perfectly fine with that.

I applaud you for trying to keep a good relationship as it seems most major defense contractors could care less about the relationship with the government.

The procurement is for PBL sustainment on a major military turbine engine and the issue is being elevated to leadership.

The contractor is arguing that since it is a PBL and the prior contract was FFP that they are exempt from submitting actuals and is being very short with any conversations concerning getting actuals even when we brought up that if they do not submit it is a knowing non disclosure and that we will submit for a post award audit for defective pricing if they do not disclose prior actuals.

We estimate that the prior actuals show 30-40% profit by analyzing the underrun in the number of overhauls completed vs the number of overhauls projected.

Sorry, What I meant was Actual Costs and yes the case was about defective pricing.

Thank you!

Jake

Good afternoon,

Does anyone have a reference to the COFC case that determined that prior actual costs incurred on prior buys are required under TINA?

I know it exists but I can not find it.

I currently have a Major defense contractor refusing to submit actuals on extremely large procurement and I would like to send them the case.

V/r

Jake

Good afternoon,

The program I am working currently has FY13 & FY14 3010 Procurement dollars from the Omnibus that we are trying to use to upgrade aircraft. Mixing of both years of funding is needed as a single year of funding is not enough to fully fund a useable end item.

My current legal advisor is under the impression that you can only fund an end item with a single year of funding (Funding is 3010 Proc money).

I have reviewed the DOD Directive 7000.14 as well as many GAO cases and senate hearings on full funding but I have not been able to find anything that states this.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

V/r

Jake