erock

Thanks for replies.

ji20874- The primes request wasn't presented as either.  The CLIN that the prime requested additional funds be added wasn't fully funded, so the prime is requesting funds be added, but not an increase in the cost of the CLIN.  To me, it still seems like an overrun even though the cost wouldn't be increased just the funded amount.

Don - Yes, via DCAA/DCMA.  Is a subcontractor required to invoice the prime using the provisional billing rates approved by DCMA?  

Neil/Joel - Both the prime contract and subcontract contract were CPFF.

Hello,

I received a request from a prime contractor to add funding to a task order because of a cost increase due to their subcontractor's final indirect rates, which I'm assuming are higher than the interim billing rates.  The task order has already ended, this cost increase is due the subcontractor's final 2020 rates. 

My understanding is that the subcontractor had a cost type contract with the prime, and now that the subcontractor has received their final indirect rates for 2020, the subcontractor is requesting additional funding to make up the difference between their billing rates and their actual final indirect rates.  My concern is that I do not know what the the subcontractor was actually billing the prime.  Would it be appropriate to ask the prime what rates the sub was using when billing?  Is a subcontractor required to invoice the prime using their approved provisional billing rates like they would invoice the Government if they were the prime?  Is this even my concern as the Government since it's the contract between the prime and sub?

I apologize for the rambling questions, just looking for some help.  Thanks.

Thanks for the discussion.  
 

The contract is CPFF for non-performance based, level of effort, engineering services. Some of the requirements are only for 12-months, which the prime claims to be a deterrent to hiring people to fill those requirements.  

One option was to subcontract the shorter term requirements, but the prime is only at 50% cost incurred for employees, and cannot subcontract anymore of the labor due to the limitation in 52.219-14(c)(1).

I didn’t consider the impact this change would of had on the competition.  Thanks, I’ll get legal’s opinion, but I’m thinking this is not the answer to the problem.

Hello,

I have a Small Business set-aside contract that includes 52.219-14 (Jan 2017).  There is now a Class Deviation for this clause, 2020-O00008.  

If the contractor agrees, are there any issues with removing the Jan 2017 version of the clause and adding the deviation?  

The deviation provides more flexibility in subcontracting that would be beneficial to the Government.

Thanks.