DGJDKO

Does anyone here use the weighted guidelines to evaluate the reasonableness of a subcontractor's fee? Would that be appropriate? This a firm-fixed price subcontract.

And no, it's not an express term, but we are treating it as such by making it the do-or-die negotiating point. We'll see if they walk away!

All points very well taken. I didn't mean to veer off into organizational issues but I guess many times the pure work of contracting is constrained by the people involved. You reminded me to respect the power of a KO's signature and the responsibility attached thereto.

I also meant to point out the first sentence of that FAR passage: "taking into account...reports of contributing specialists." Our opinion counts for at least something right?

I can see how you would glean that from this conversation, and that's a fair response. But this particular KO is a completely"black-and-white" rule reader; inflexible and downright obstinate. I do NOT have a personal dislike for her so my professional opinion is not driven by emotion. I'm often given directives like this without any explanation at all. And while I agree with all said on this forum, our internal policy strongly suggests that we should focus on the primes analysis, if any(there is). So I was given a directive contrary to policy and without explanation (after requesting one). Repeated practice of this kind of leadership has produced frustration in me and others, and we often find ourselves searching for the wider boundaries to do a better deal instead of slavishly following unexplained directives. Maybe that is disloyal, but if so, it's in response to unwarranted distrust of any opinion other than her own in spite of evidence to the contrary. Is that disloyal, or a natural response? I get it, she's the KO and it's her discretion, not "ours." But I also think a seasoned specialist should be allowed to present alternatives and create solutions that lead to what might be a better deal. This is how great deals are done and how contracting teams develop, imho. I'm (and others) not given the professional respect of even a dialogue, so here I am, with "attitude." So sue me. Or her actually...she's the KO right? i wasnt here to vent, but in light of the suggestion that I might be "disloyal" I'm forced to defend myself with context. You can't plant seeds of distrust and expect loyalty in return. This style has had an incredibly negative impact on my organization. We have some customers paying outside shops to buy for them.

Excellent - thank you both. I'm the government Specialist on a cost reimbursement contract but with a fixed price subcontract. I had a KO say that only the weighted guidelines were acceptable for evaluating sub profit )( I misused the term fee earlier). Maybe to her, but I was thinking along the lines of Patrick's post. Our difference on this wouldn't normally matter much but I'm also working on a mod (different contract) to substitute subcontractors...and the although the new subs fee is very high the total subcontract price is actually lower. Her position is that the high fee is unacceptable - meaning we're willing to walk away. My position is that -particularly since the total price is lower - then we can support a wide range of subcontract profit rates. She responds that the weighted guidelines says "x" so we give them "x." That's what sparked my question here. My program office wants that particular sub and is at full-on lagerheads with my KO. I understand that the fee is high but considering our discretion on subcontract fee I don't think it's worth jeopardizing our relationship with the program office. Thanks..this answers my question. Your thoughts on the rest of that scenario are welcome too.

Thank you... that's actually usefulto know. But my challenge is this: since we don't have privity of contract with the subcontractor; I.e. relationship is between the prime and the sub; aren't there factors that the prime may be considering that we have no reason to know? Couldn't there be lots of valid reasons why a prime considers a fee reasonable but inure to no direct benefit to the government? in my mind the weighted guidelines assume a direct contractual relationship , making it a less valuable tool for a subcontract. And does the primes analysis/rationale for the subcontracter Play any role in evaluating the fee? It seems to me that would be the primary point of analysis – with the weighted guidelines as a supplement. Have you ever heard this point of view in your 15 years?