Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4,096 profile views
  1. I promised Joel a follow up. The guidance provided in this thread was followed to a tee. Claim successful with zero questions asked. Payment received
  2. Help, I’m reading your man-splanation again, I think you are saying that a deposit as I described can be recorded in one’s accounting system as either an allowable project expense (as the small biz did) or as as a prepaid expense (asset account, not a cost, not billable, will not be indicated to client and will be handled within the accounting department). Both are equally correct for any size business ?
  3. Help, thanks for mansplaining this to me. Makes perfect sense
  4. Help- If a “deposit” is required for the acquisition of a direct project cost, is it still not an allowable cost? I ran into a situation recently that tested this. My response would normally be the same as yours that a prepaid deposit is an asset. Unbeknownst to us, we recently paid a small biz subcontractor - via their monthly invoice under a T&M subk - the cost of a deposit that a hotel required to honor per diem rates for a conference. We didn’t catch it in our review, then passed it along in our invoice to the government. Nobody at the government blinked an eye and our invoice was paid. It wasn’t until the next month that I noticed it because the cost of the “deposits” were shown as credits to direct cost. So, instead of the small biz recording the deposit to their asset account they billed it as a direct project cost, then had to extend the credit when the hotel gave it back. This isn’t the same question OP is asking but I think the underlying themes are similar. Is what the small biz did wrong? Maybe a large business with lots of cash has no problem floating the deposit and only processing travel costs as direct when they are incurred (recording the deposit and the ensuing offset as a separate accounting transaction). But for a small biz to float a hefty deposit may not be reasonable (and probably argued by the small biz as unfair).
  5. Neil let’s suppose the subcontract was identified as ‘cost’ but the agreement was largely silent on what that meant (are rate adjustments required at actuals and at what frequency, etc). The ACP was not there. In a commercial agreement I am not aware of a set of regs that would alone define what a commercial ‘cost’ agreement means. Is it fair to say that absent language in a commercial agreement that says what cost plus means between the two parties that it’s plain ambiguous
  6. Thanks help! Your overemphasis of the submission frequency is exactly what I was hoping to hear. You are right that my initial Q referred to a CR prime that includes the ACP. Separately in a cost reimbursement subcontract where no ACP was flowed down, that sounds like a problem right?
  7. Retread in reading it again I see in absence of audited rates that billing rates shall be anticipated final rates i.e. the rates not yet deemed final but reflective of the submitted incurred cost submission. So I suppose the answer is yes, when you submit your ICS your Billings should be updated to reflect those rates. When rates are actually audited they’d become the ‘final’ rates. Is that close? As for the subcontract, in the absence of specific guidance for this process and the failure of the ACP to be incorporated in the agreement, it could be anyone’s guess right?
  8. Indirect rates are submitted via incurred cost submission to DCAA annually within six months of the end of fiscal year. At what point is the contractor obligated to extend the 'actual', which is contractor-calculated-but-not-audited, rates to the govt, when the contractor has received no endorsement of the rates from the government. Are they obligated to submit a true up bill to the government annually? If they do not is there a consequence? This assumes allowable cost and payment clause as a prime. Is the answer different if you are a sub.
  9. Pepe, I have admittedly never encountered a ‘rain maker’, but I have heard of them and know they are out there. In my experience, though, BD folks are far less prestigious generators of ‘business’ than anything you described. They are often (but not always) folks with subject matter expertise in whatever they are ‘selling’, and have performed the work themselves in their careers before BD. They are normally qualified to walk the walk and talk the talk. As it pertains to government contracts, I haven’t personally met many BD people that were overly persuasive or well-suited for sales. It’s often someone who knows the business reasonably well (or is an expert), knows just enough about government contracts to be dangerous, and knows what a teaming agreement is and why we need one. They are good at evaluating RFP opportunities, are good technical writers, and they know enough about the opportunity to know if it’s rigged or ‘wired’ for another company. They know whether or not they or their partner firm has ‘capes’ and can be competitive for work. Sometimes they assume the position of a proposal coordinator for a big, competitive RFP. I guess I have a pretty jaded view of BD because a lot of times the opportunities they 'win' turn out badly. In my experience BD folks are quick to make a ‘sale’ at any cost. Which often means an ill-advised budget compromise, a persuasion to accept contract terms knowing full well they shouldn’t, and a lack of awareness or caring for contract administration, traded for ‘client’ relations. They would be the enemies of many Wifcon members. Oh, and I have never seen them paid on a commission basis. The position I described is salaried and in the range of $140K - $200K per year.
  10. thanks for everybody pushing the rock up that hill. I will moveon to reading some solicitations more closely.
  11. what I am talking about is the development of procurement proedures for an institute of higher education, a university, or a non profit as indicated in 2 CFR 200.318. It is also described in .319 and .320 describe specifically what methods of procurement must be followed. IN short, it says a covered entity should have procurement policies that sorta mimic the government's when it comes to soliciating subcontractors. don has aptly stated that this is a post award requirement and I am saying that it's rare that you haven't already picked your partner before your proposal goes to the government. i am looking for a way to reasonably select subcontractors that are included in a proposal when time does not permit a full and open competition. if you always selected/competed subs post award i am crystal clear. that is not my reality. I am missing something and my denseness is not by design. Im taking a rest from this and taking more time to research. appreciate the insights
  12. Don you make a really good point. I agree these regs are post award. But, in my experience, if you are including a subcontractor in your proposal, often times, not always, it’s because they are providing a technical qualification that you yourself may not possess. Maybe they have exceptional past performance doing xyz and you don’t. Maybe they have some highly qualified expert on their team. Wouldn’t the government be ticked if you included them in your bid, won, and then competed the subcontract post award and it had to go to someone else. If the government awards without discussions isn’t that sort of what you’re left with? Plus an unhappy teaming partner. If the proposal instructions say one thing and post award you have a different set of rules that seems like a problem. Pending a contract award the majority of subcontract awards I have seen were done deals with the prime proposal submission.
  13. Thanks Don. If you’re submitting a competitive proposal and you need to include your subcontract costs for example, maybe you need the partner for tech requirements also, how do you negotiate a price before the bid is submitted if you don’t compete it or solicit quotes. its often the case that the taming May indicate a general share of the Sow and as part of the government’s cost price analysis wouldn’t they want that performed before proposal submission. Post award doesn’t make a lot of sense to me
  14. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.320 200.320 section D1 says: (d) Procurement by competitive proposals. The technique of competitive proposals is normally conducted with more than one source submitting an offer, and either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. It is generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. If this method is used, the following requirements apply: (1) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (2) Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources; https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.318 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/2/200.319 They seem straightforward especially when considering post award. But, preaward it seems unreasonable to comply competing everying subcontract over $250k.
  • Create New...