GtarJohn

It does not and you obviously are gaining some kind of personal gratification by trolling every one of my responses. I'm done with posting on this site...admin can delete my profile if they so choose.

Exactly what it sounds like (assume cost reimbursable contract or task order).

I work on a contract that allows this IAW their disclosure statement. I have heard over the cubes that some folks working for the KTR are grumbling as some exempt employees get the straight time whereas others do not. A good way to lose quality folks, if you ask me. I often wonder if the USG is getting billed for those over and above hours and not paying the employees putting in the hours.

Agree with Retreadfed. I've set up Toner BPAs before - place the call and get the toners, as needed. If the lead time is too long, consider setting up a BPA with a vendor with a shorter turn-around time. Also, I only allowed high-yield toners on my BPA (if they existed for subject printers).

Is this an FFP contract? I was assuming it was CPFF.

It's no big deal formented. I don't have enough information of the OPs situation to really offer advice and can only speculate. I don't see the realighment as being added scope...shoot, we (The USG) do CLIN realignments all the time on our cost type contracts. Thinking more about this...It sounds like the ODC CLIN has been partially funded...thus the alignment will result in it being fully funded. I would get your finance and legal to chime in on it before proceeding, but it may be ok. Does the KTR's ETC and EAC show a need to be fully funded on the ODC CLIN? If they are showing a positive variance in their status reporting, there may not be a need to fully fund it.

Do you disagree with me or something? I didn't know this was a debate forum or such that it was expected every post response to be a Grad School dissertation. I'm beginning to believe this site to be more about trolling, 1-upping and/or flexing one's intellectual prowess than actually sharing ideas and offering potential solutions to problems.

Because I'm trying to help. Why do you care?

I assume this is a cost reimbursement contract funded with FY18 O&M and has been incrementally funded. Is this correct? If so, my answer would be no...go get current year funds from your customer to add to the ODC CLIN and deobligate the old money off the CLIN showing a positive variance. Consult with your comptroller as others have recommended to ensure you're not violating something in the FMR. I hope you are not referring to ODCs that have already been incurred by the KTR. There should be a record of LOF notifications sent by the contractor leading up to this point per FAR Clause 52.232-22 (hope that's in the contract if it's incrementally funded).

I digress...I've gotten too used to working on a GOCO where the contractor takes stewardship and manages the property records from AC induction until the FORM JPS-5-206-A is signed off and the bird flies away. We call it GFP on all our TOs...even though we own the hangars (they also manage the maintenance of the facilities as well). I should have read the original post more carefully.

GFP - Government is providing the broken AC wing to the contractor (or the contractor's maintenance team if work is to be accomplished on government property ) to do repairs.

In my position I do: 10% #1 90% #2 I should be doing more file management...but the squeaky wheel gets the grease in my fast-moving department.

We deal with matters like this all the time...most of the time the Ktr agrees to price adjustment bilaterally. If not; we issue the price adjustment mod unilaterally. Ktr can challenge following Disputes clause 52.233-1 procedures, but none ever have thus far. It's nothing personal - just the nature of doing business with USG.

Yes...I've had to be my own KSpec and KO in both contingency contracting and stateside assignments. It's not preferred as two sets of eyes are better than one, but sometimes one has to work with what one has.

They are not playing us by any fiddles and I totally understand everything you are stating...lastly, we don't give the KTRs copies of our PNMs. I don't post on here much, but Im not a newby to this contracting stuff...did it for 20 years in the military and now 6 additional as a civilian. This is just an issue I've not had much experience working through working in a SPO...other than when it's just outright obvious...i.e. (KTR is just ordering stuff). Thanks, John

Thank you Joel...your assumptions are correct. Here we go again...provide our position with solid rationale...then the KTR sends back their position (usually with questionable rationale)....of course their negotiators have no authority to settle. So we get to a stalemate and one of their business directors will try to go over the KO's head, who pushes them back to the KO (sometimes all the way up to the HCA). Then the customer gets fed up and says they're going to pull the funding by XYZ date if not on award. Finally, at the 11th hour, the KTR negotiator gets the authority to settle and we move out toward TO award.

That's likely where I'm heading. We often go there when the KTR is just ordering COTS items on GSA to put in storage for the customer. We have done so many of those that the KTR pretty much proposes where we settled on the previous one. The proposal that I'm referring to in this discussion is the big issue I'm grappling over. Of course I have like 10 other large estimates I'm working through at the same time...lot's of, "where's my tech eval, explain the divergence between your crappy IGCE and the KTR's estimate, yada, yada, yada..like herding cats. SERENITY NOW!!!

I'll have to dig when I get back, but pretty sure it's standard 52.246-5. The sub's scope of work is being performed offsite at subject KTR's plant - hundreds of miles away from where our current Prime KTR works (this is a GOCO IDIQ). DCMA is closer (in the same town as sub), thus the customer wanted to reduce costs by using them vs paying travel costs for having the Prime lodge near the sub's plant (not sure the sub would let the Prime's folks in their plant). Plan is to have our cognizant DCMA ACO delegate the quality functions to the DCMA adjacent to the sub's plant.

I really appreciate your feedback...I will dig into how the KTR complied with 52.215-22 when I get back to the office and report back. Thank you for correcting me concerning disallowing...I really meant negotiate it to 0%. We administer so many TOs here...we sometimes have to disallow costs incurred, thus I got my signals crossed. Also, I certainly understand about not having to agree on every element of cost...we rarely do, but we do reach price agreement with regard to cost and fee. I've gotten rather good at explaining these things in our post negotiation memorandums...helps when we have to go through our contract review boards (when over $$ threshold as required by policy). You are correct regarding your response to Pepe...this IDIQ isa single award (The IDIQ was competed and the awarded KTR gets all the TOs).

Hi Folks...I've been a member and lurker here for a long time and have learned a great deal reading through the posts. I finally need to break the ice as I have a situation regarding excessive pass through charges that I can't seem to get my head around. I will be using hypothetical $$$s and such as I certainly don't want anyone to identify the contract/TO I'm currently working. Relevant info: Large DOD IDIQ - It's not a MAC and mostly non-commercial TOs are issued of this vehicle...90% cost-reimbursement TOs. We use FAR 15 procedures for every TO order we award. We basically task the KTR to provide us a cost estimate for a requirement; receive their estimate, customer's tech eval, negotiate as necessary (using WG for fee and profit), reach price agreement, KTR TINA Certs when above the threshold and we finally issue (award) the TO. We have an ACO here...but when generally administer all of the TOs up to final cost audit...and they handle all IDIQ-level indirect rates and decisions on KTR damage to GP, etc. FAR Clause 52.215-23 is in the IDIQ and flows to our TOs unless explicitly excluded. The tasking I'm having a hard time with right now is CPFF for let's say $30M (ballpark) non-severable services order. 90% of the $$$ of this estimate is for subcontracted support from the OEM on some of the components - sub's proposal is for an FFP commercial service. Of course the prime has given us an estimate with all their burdens and fee across all cost elements. They have bid a small amount project mgt, data mgt, engineering planning, subcontract mgt, etc. hours into the estimate with regard to the scope they are subcontracting. DCMA will be doing the majority of the quality functions on site and handle inspections and acceptances directly from the sub (less work for the prime). We're just now developing our negotiation strategy and are having a hard time with regard to whether or not this situation should be considered an excessive pass through. The contractor does add value in managing the program, as there are other areas of scope the prime will be performing ...but the Prime doesn't really have much hands on with the work the sub is doing...other than receiving monthly schedule status reports from the SUB, some minor quality hrs and being at an arm's length in case any issues pop up. My initial gut reaction is to negotiate giving them their fee on the prime's hours, materials, etc. and either disallowing the fee on the subcontracted effort, or reducing it significantly (perhaps, for example 7% for the prime and 2% for the sub). I don't go into any negotiation without having solid rationale to support my position. I feel uneasy about settling on such a large amount of fee. I have no way of knowing what kind of profit the sub is quoting as it would be like pulling teeth to get their cost/pricing data for their FFP/Commercial quote (we have a copy of the quote). I mean, they meet more than one of the definitions in 52.215-23 (a)...they add value in some areas and negligible value in other areas (which just so happens to be the most expensive area). Has anyone ever been in this situation? If so, what did you do? I feel like I'm splitting hairs here. Thanks!!!