Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

J_S_K

Members
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About J_S_K

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,644 profile views
  1. Here_2_help, Appreciate your feedback.
  2. Ji20874, Let me first correct my typo, FAR 31.205-46, not 31.206-46..... however I think you understood my mistake. Yes the FAR does mention the JTR for Hawaii, however throughout regulation it states that a contractor should follow the maximun per diem. The maximun per diem is quite different from the flat rate for long term assignments. I am a bit conflicted between the two and the allowability of the maxium rate if we have an associate on travel in Hawaii for >180 days when the JTR now has a reduced rate for long term per diem called "flat rate". As a contractor, should we bill the maximum rate or the reduced flat rate?
  3. no reference to JTR, only reference to travel requirements is that we follow FAR 31.206-46.
  4. I am looking for assurance that the recent JTR changes relating to Flat Rate Per diem for travel >30 days & >180 days does not apply to Contractors on long term assignments in Hawaii. Does Maximum per diem for long term Hawaii only apply? Thank you in advance!
  5. Vern - The contracts period of performance ended in 2007. We still have unused cost ceiling. Employees were hired at higher salaries than proposed, however less FTE's were needed to perform the work. Did not have a cost overrun, just missed LOE because of the lower employee count created less hours to incur against LOE. We billed as a % of cost... the issue is that we now have to refund a substantial amount of fee that was billed once the LOE adjustment is made... or maybe upfront at close out. That is what I am not sure about. Do we initiate the refund or wait for the CO to de-obligate?
  6. Joel - The billing of the contract clearly states that we are to bill fee at a % of cost. "The Government shall make payments to the Contractor, subject to and in accordance with the clause in this contract entitled "FIXED FEE" (FAR 52.216-8) or (FAR 52.216-10), as applicable. Such payments shall be equal to X% of the allowable cost of each invoice submitted by and payable to the Contractor...........The fee(s) specified in SECTION B, and payment thereof, is subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraph (g) of this special contract requirement entitled "LEVEL OF EFFORT"..........If the fee(s) is reduced and the reduced fee(s) is less than he sum of all fee payments made to the Contractor under this contract, the contractor shall repay the excess amount to the Government. If the final adjusted fee exceeds all fee payments made to the contract under this contract, the Contractor shall be paid the additional amount subject to the availability of funds". While I think we have been billing in accordance to the contract terms, and it appears that the adjustment of fee is to be made by the Contracting Officer, we are unsure if on our final invoice should include the fee adjustment if the Contracting Officer has not already made the fee adjustment. I would assume that DCAA would trigger the LOE adjustment to the Contracting officer if we did not include the adjustment. Retreadfed - Cost did not exceed ceiling. Cost of performance is fully covered within the cost ceiling, just missed the LOE requirements. Hired higher salaried employees to fill contract requirements with less headcount than what was originally proposed causing the LOE miss. Feedback has been helpful, thanks.
  7. Thanks Vern for taking the bite. It does help.
  8. Example: CPFF Term/LOE Navy Contract which ended December 2007. Standard Navy LOE clause in contract states; "If the total level of effort specified in paragraph (a) above is not provided by the Contractor during the period of this contract, the Contracting Officer, at its sole discretion, shall either (i) reduce the fee of this contract as follows Fee Reduction = Fee (Required LOE - Expended LOE)/Required LOE or (ii) subject to the provisions of the clause of this contract entitled "LIMITATION OF COST" (FAR 52.232-20) or "LIMITATION OF COST (FACILITIES)" (FAR 52.232-21), as applicable, require the Contractor to continue to perform the work until the total number of man-hours of direct labor specified in paragraph (a) above shall have been expended, at no increase in the fee of this contract. The payment clause has allowed the billing to be % of allowable cost of each invoice. Indirect rates have been audited and now it is time for final invoice. LOE has not been met and a significant refund is due for the variance between % of cost and LOE incurred. Questions? 1) Is it up to the Contractor to automatically refund the fee billed in excess of the LOE calculation at close out or wait until the CO reduces the fee? 2) Is there any recourse penalites on the Contractor for not refunding the fee earlier at contract end when it was known the LOE was not met?
×