Neil Roberts

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neil Roberts

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California/Nationwide
  • Interests
    World and U.S. travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,349 profile views
  1. Per FAR 31.204 costs must be reasonable. You didn't indicate how how your firm supported its reasonableness. Just because it is incurred, does not make it reasonable. If there was adequate support of its reasonableness at the time of purchase, perhaps you can explain what that was to DCAA. Not sure what is meant be "formal agreements" and "true subcontractors." Anything in writing between your firm and another entity has the potential to be a valid contract, no matter who executes it for your firm.
  2. My understanding is that professional liability insurance for an individual would probably not pay for damages caused by the individual's commission of a crime. However, the insurance company may defend the person against such allegations until such time as there is a judicial finding that the damages were causes by the commission of a crime. It does seem possible that aside from defending the person, the insurance company might actually pay for damages negotiated in a civil suit settlement that clearly indicates there is no admission of liability/criminal guilt. In my view, it might be possible in a criminal law prosecution plea deal that indicates admission of guilt to a lesser unrelated charge, i.e., disturbing the peace. Are there any insurance experts out there that can comment?
  3. And with respect to that, Vern, I believe federal employees should consider looking into obtaining insurance against liability when sued in their individual capacity for claims alleged to be in violation of the U.S. or a State constitution, a federal statute or state tort law. For some employment positions, the Government may reimburse for such insurance. There does seem to be a process for employees to request that the Government provide Government attorneys to represent them. That representation isn't always guaranteed. The cost to an employee for hiring an attorney is expensive, aside from the possibility of being personally liable for damages. In my view, federal employees should bone up on what their situation is in their Agency and job category.
  4. Wonder whether the investigator or his supervisor even thought about conferring with the U.S. Attorney's Office before acting, to determine whether the U.S. Attorney would prosecute. All the facts were known except authenticity, and it could be assumed it was authentic moon rock. Next step, facetiously, maybe Neil Armstrong should be prosecuted posthumously for giving out this gift. The Government action in this case disturbs me.
  5. Sounds like your suppliers are shipping from outside the U.S or its possessions. These shipping terms are complicated and include customs, duties, taxes and liability for loss. The standard for such shipping is INCO terms (International Chamber of Commerce). Specific terms such as you are seeking, are defined therein. But, you will probably need to do Google research on the plain meaning of the given definition.
  6. Would be interested in the time line for completing section (d). That seems to be a heck of a lot of work.
  7. Hi Bulgheroni: Your question can be asked at the LinkedIn CPSR Forum and/or CPSR Help and Hints on Facebook. Both are industry type.
  8. Vern: Projecting that to this clause based on experience regarding tax and cost accounting situations, ACO questions and comments over the years, and interpretations regarding the general application of prime contract clauses on affiliates and prime contractors where the relationship is not arms length. Application and review of the relationship is included in CPSR reviews. See FAR 44.303(e). Neil
  9. With respect to flowdown to subcontractors, the following benchmark is offered: Lockheed Martin CORPDOC 3C (03-99) for DOE flowdowns is as follows: 952.209-72 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (JUN 1997) (ALT I) (Applicable if this Contract is for advisory and assistance services... With respect to affiliates, I would argue that there are circumstances about the relationship where it could be determined that the prime controls the affiliate in such a way, and/or does not deal with it “at arms length” such that the affiliates work could bar the prime from future contracts due to conflict of interest related to the affiliates work.
  10. Just FYI in the future, if a contract dispute goes to court, focus would usually be on the actual contract language, not discussions or evidence of discussions about the contract language...the contract reads the way it reads, and the court will decide what it means.
  11. What has your company been doing with such contracts up until now? If Supplier Management actually issues the commitment for such contracts, and there is no other system where they should be entered, and the rest of the company agrees, my opinion is, yes. However, if you do that, you should have some coding associated with all such contracts such that when the system is queried for a data call of purchases in support of a customer contract, they are not included unless they are directly in support of the customer contract required work and not treated as overhead in your system. You should coordinate this project with your Finance function. I have not previously heard of the rental of a building for general employees being entered into the Purchasing Business System records. Nor have I known Supplier Management to have the authority to make such a commitment.
  12. Not sure, Retread. Have not read the cases cited by Lionel Hutz (thank you) and have not done any research about cases law or the regulations Also, not sure about the exact contract language, whether it is ambiguous or whether the regulations clearly answer the question. It is a suggested argument based on general contract principles without knowing what the Government argument is. If the Government responds to such an argument with rationale as provided by Lionel Hutz, and the contract language is clear, it may be that in the end, the $20,000 does not apply to each option. Benjamin should present his concern,obtain Government response and go from there. I was Just trying to offer something for Benjamin to get going with that would supplement his existing focus. In general I would argue that an option is a separate contract that is formed after proper exercise, and should have included consideration to begin with in order for the option to be enforceable. If clearly indicated in the contract and the intent of the parties are not permitted to be examined, in my view, $1.00 could possibly be valid consideration for both the basic and options.
  13. If I were you, I would be asking the customer what they think and why. Knowing that would help you frame your arguments. As indicated above, the regulatory details are massive and tricky. With respect to contract principles, I would argue that YR1 and YR2 options lack consideration without the $20,000 minimum being separately applicable to each. I was confused about the option CLIN. Was YR1 and YR2 option included in a single CLIN? If both option periods are included in a single CLIN, and the $20,000 minimum applies to that single CLIN (which is what it sounds to me you may have been saying), don't you need to wait until YR2 option period is exercised before your "complaint" that the $20,000 minimum was not met?? If YR1 and YR 2 options were each clearly separately included in the initial IDIQ contract, I would argue that unless the $20,000 minimum applies to each each option, exercise of each option lacks consideration and is unenforceable.
  14. The strength of your leverage may depend on FAR 52.216-7(a) alterations in your subcontract regarding who is "Government", "Contractor" and "Contracting Officer" therein, if you care to go over that....
  15. DOD Class Deviations are located at