Jump to content

InNeedofWisdom

Members
  • Posts

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by InNeedofWisdom

  1. Is this for a DoD contract? If so, is DCAA reviewing your cost-reimbursement vouchers? I would submit to you that any DCAA auditor who briefed the contract and read the phrase "reimbursed at cost" would disallow profit on a CR CLIN. Also, I would venture to suggest that DCAA would at least consider filing a fraud report. You should talk to the contracting officer before you include profit.

  2. I hope this isn't a matter of ethics...

    I see your point. It seems like a small issue. The reason I brought up ethics is because Captain 2722 used the phrase " the right way " twice in the same paragraph. Maybe Captain 2722 is really asking, " What is the best way? " If so, Captain 2722 should have no problem sharing his thoughts and helping the contracting officer with whatever decision is made.

  3. As the CS, I want to do this the right way. I don't want to just give it to the CO even though I know they'll sign it. Question is: what is the right way??

    Here is some advice from someone that has handled the kind of issue you are describing in a good way and in a poor/bad way:

    1. Understand exactly what you are being asked to do and whether or not you have an ethical issue,

    2. Do not assume that you know all the relevant facts around the situation and don't be afraid to ask,

    3. Do not expect anyone else to change because of your conscience (if there is an ethical issue),

    4. If there is an ethical issue, do not think you are absolved because you do not sign the end product, and

    5. Communicate to those around you if you do not feel you can do something in good conscience.

    If this is not an ethical issue for you, I would not worry about it and would just keep going. I hope this advice is an encouragement.

  4. This sounds familiar. Let me give you a hypothetical example that may or may not apply to your situation:

    The sole/single source contractor for a DoD prime contract has reached an agreement on price with a sole/single source subcontractor subject to TINA. The prime contract is currently undefinitized, but will be FFP once negotiated. The negotiated subcontract will also be FFP, but is undefinitized pending negotiations and definitization at the prime level. The prime contractor is concerned that the government may not think its cost analysis was sufficient, and that the government might take issue with subcontract labor hours, number of trips, etc. So, the prime contractor wants DCMA to provide field pricing assistance (or DCAA to do a proposal audit, if the subcontract is big enough) to minimize the risk of a downward adjustment in the prime contract. The prime contractor wants a re-opener clause so that if there is a downward adjustment, it will be able to pass the subcontract cost of that adjustment down to the subcontractor.

    I hope this hypothetical example gives you some insight into what the prime contractor might be thinking. I can think of a less-positive situation that might be going on, but I hope what is going on is something like the above example.

  5. Articles like this: http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/news/pdfs/InnovationInGovernment.pdf, and maybe programs such as this: http://www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/programs/cgl/leadership_excellence_in_acquisition_program.shtml, has me hoping some day FAR and Innovation can truely be bridged together. Easiest way to eat an elephant right....one bite at a time.... Just my $0.02 for what it's worth.

    Thank you for sharing these links. I found the following statement on page 4 of the ideo link to be very insightful:

    Whenever our country faces a “mission impossible,” the American public looks to our government to solve the problem. Whether it’s a financial collapse, terrorist attack, oil spill or a crumbling education system, we expect our government to find solutions and deliver results. We also expect our government to reliably perform "day-to-day" tasks such as delivering the mail, screening airline passengers and fulfilling Social Security payments, effectively and efficiently, crisis or no crisis.
  6. The board agreed with the government and found the temp employee firm to be a subcontractor, erroneously relying on the definitions of subcontract and subcontractor in FAR 44.101. In reality, the temps were independent contractors hired through a third party to work as employees.

    Does "erroneously" equal conveniently? Was it an error to rely upon these definitions because FAR 44.101 should apply to consent and competition in subcontracting and not to T&M payment? Your conclusion makes sense, and I am trying to understand where the board erred.

  7. I largely agree. One problem not often mentioned is that there's simply too much procurement going on. But I don't see a realistic solution to that, either.

    I was about to suggest that balancing the federal budget could be a solution for too much procurement (spending) going on. :) However, the thought came that "likely" is perhaps the best synonym for your above use of the word "realistic". Balancing the federal budget does not appear to be a likely solution anytime soon, but if it was likely, I would probably have to find something else to do. :D

  8. Yes, I can relate. :) I took algebra-based physics and not calculus-based physics. I don't remember very much beyond basic algebra from high school.

    I wonder how much of the problem is how the article was written versus the subject that the article was discussing. When people talk about cutting the deficit, they may or may not be talking about current spending levels. They may actually be talking about reducing how much future spending levels are greater than current spending levels (i.e. shrinking the "growth" in the budget.)

    Although, if the article (and the subject it is describing) was only talking about reducing how much future spending levels increase, I am not sure why defense contractors would be, "forced to compete on price." If current spending is steady, and future spending will be increased (just not as much as some would like), how would that force contractors (more than before) to now compete on price?

  9. Funny Quote at http://fcw.com/Articles/2014/05/27/Deltek-contractor-survey.aspx?Page=2.

    As the growth of the federal budget shrinks, the federal market is increasingly dominated by incumbent players, who are forced to compete on price.

    If growth is velocity (speed), then "shrinking growth" would be de-accelerating (slowing down). But what if growth is actually acceleration on the velocity/speed of the federal budget (with distance being the size of the national debt), how do you "de-accelerate" your acceleration (i.e. slow down your speeding up)? Does anyone want to draw a vector diagram? :)

    As we see the budgets start to climb back again, I think you'll see companies and agencies being smarter about the decisions they're making, and the competition over price not being quite so acute.

    The article concludes on a hopeful note for federal budgets that "growth" will stop shrinking and start growing. But how does this help companies and agencies be "smarter" about decisions? Who defines the concept of smart? Is it relative? If the whole system one day crashes and burns, who will be smart enough to determine the cause of the crash? :unsure:

  10. I do not understand the difference between operations contracting and procurement analysts. Are you talking about contracting officers in both categories? Is there a union to deal with in one or both categories? At places like DCAA the union makes a big difference in what changes can be made. The quality control review put in place in 2011 had to be done by Field Detachment (non-unionized) GS-12 auditors across the agency because the regular unionized GS-12 auditors would have given push-back if any regular unionized auditors had been given special status as quality reviewers. If there is any kind of union involved in one or both of the above categories, the process of leveling the playing field could be very protracted.

  11. If I understand this long thread correctly, the issue was about whom in the federal government has the authority to 1) Interpret a law and 2) Tell that "interpreter" when they are incorrect. That is an interesting issue. It appears the subject interpretation was (is?) broad enough to where the contracting officer could decide what they wanted to do anyway. Does anyone know the current status for the subject interpretation? I wonder if the GAO will challenge other interpretations where even the FAR appears to go beyond the statutory provision (e.g. "of-a-type" stand-alone commercial services).

  12. I'm convinced the government's past performance process needs a major overhaul. In theory, it's a good concept. In practice, it's often useless. Just looks at CPARS reports and it's rare to find a bad rating. I've heard many COs say they and program managers don't tell the complete truth because it's too difficult dealing with repercussions.

    ...

    What do you think?

    I have a background in auditing. In college I had an assignment to look for an "adverse opinion" or a "qualified opinion". It was a lot harder than I thought it would be. My experience is that auditing is more of an engine governor than a speed limit. The client negotiates with the auditor about what is too risky.

    I am not sure of how my experience in auditing applies to past performance ratings in the government. The government may think a contractor could not be replaced fast enough. Auditors may also be concerned with a client leaving (unless more concerned about being sued). I hope the analogies help.

  13. FAR 52.244-2 is the key clause. You need to look at FAR 52.244-2(d) to see if the CO made any special provisions. Provided there are no special provisions, your sister company should not have to obtain consent or advance notification based on FAR 52.244-2( c ). One way to think about it is like you have two purchasing departments at your single company. The government has approved one purchasing department to place subcontracts. But the government wants to review the work of the other purchasing department before placing subcontracts.

  14. Unfortunately, I have reached the conclusion that it is best just to share arguements with decision makers once and then let the chips fall where they may.

    I think this may show why your user name is "Chip13". :) If you are trying to persuade someone to wait longer in getting their supply or service, or to invest in more of what they see as "non-value add", you have a hard case to make. It comes down to what their goals are and who they are serving.

    In a real profession, like medicine, law, and engineering, professionals research, think, write, publish, read, consider, and discuss until a generally accepted course of practice emerges and then continues to evolve through further study and debate. That's how doctors finally decided to wash their hands before treating patients. In a real profession, professionals would not wait for fiat from on high and would not accept it without question if it came.

    I think I read a post recently that talked about “legal fiction”. Fiat is exactly that unless people accept it and follow it. For example, fiat money is only money because people use it like money. I am thankful when people like you and Don are patient with those of us learning to think.

    As an aside, the Torah should have been an indicator to doctors that they should wash their hands. Whether an idea evolves over time or not, there is still design by God. Evolving ideas show how much people have caught on (or lack thereof) to what God has designed. Ask God for wisdom.

    God spoke and it happened. That is not fiat. When you talk about professionals thinking, it almost sounds like you could be talking about Christians keeping (watching, guarding) God's commandments. The real professional (Christian) will want to understand the "Why" behind the design.

  15. H2H,

    Yes, it makes sense that the underlying purchases of the IOT performer would be subject to CPSR review. Here is a quote from the following blog: http://procurelinx.com/blogs/lessons-learned-eventually-successful-cpsr

    The contractor did not automate their data call response based on DCMA-imposed rules of exclusion; the entire data call process was manual. As a result, several orders under GSA contracts were included in the review along with some high dollar value orders awarded to a contractor affiliate. These incorrectly included high dollar value orders resulted in several public law deficiencies. [emphsis added]

    I wish there was a clear-cut rule from DCMA at the higher-level CPSR review to either 1) Exclude all lower-level IOTs, 2) Exclude all IOTs for non-commercial items, or 3) Include all IOTs.

×
×
  • Create New...