Jump to content

lotus

Members
  • Posts

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lotus

  1. There was an opportunity we were watching, GovWin 211918, Cybersecurity Support, with the USPTO.

    The latest GovWin update says the opportunity was separated into 4 task orders and awarded to 4 companies.  As far as I can tell, this was done without the usual solicitation and competitive proposal procedure.  The government just picked its 4 favorite contractors and gave them awards.

    What might have been the justification for that? 

     

    ------------------------------------------ from GovWin --------------------------------------------

    The Contracting Office confirmed this requirement was separated into 4 task orders and awarded via GSA MAS Schedule and VETS 2. Task Orders were awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Saliense Consulting llc, Xor Security llc, and Zermount, Inc. Please refer to the Contracts Section of this report for details. Stephan Batt is the Point of Contact for this effort.

    Please note that due to the acquisition strategy selected by the government, Deltek has limited visibility into this procurement and is unable to provide a copy of the Solicitation documents.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  2. On 12/30/2020 at 11:15 AM, Neil Roberts said:

    Perhaps you can tell whether the work is severable or not by how the work it is expressed in the RFP? The GSA definition is as follows:

    532.703 Contract funding requirements.

          (a)  “Severable services” means services that are continuing and ongoing in nature—such as help-desk support, maintenance, or janitorial services—for which benefit is received each time the service is rendered.

          (b)  “Non-severable services” means work that results in a final product or end-item and for which benefit is received only when the entire project is complete, such as systems design, building conversion, or environmental study.

     

    SF 1449, Block 29, indicates the Govt may accept some proposed items, without accepting all of them.  If this is unacceptable, is there a real option other than no-bidding?

    ------------------------------

    YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION
    (BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE
    SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS ___________________

    -------------------------------

     

     

     

  3. The Government typically wants the contractor to sign a release of claims and some certifications after work in done and paid for.

    Has anyone ever taken the position that they will do so, but only if and after the Government signs similar forms releasing the contractor from future claims and making similar certifications (e.g., the government has back all of its property)?

  4. On 9/5/2020 at 8:35 PM, here_2_help said:

    This is a very dangerous line of reasoning not supported by (or in direct conflict with) applicable FAR and/or CAS regulations. Contractors that follow this line of reasoning should expect, as a minimum, questioned costs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a CAS 402 noncompliance thrown in for good measure. In extreme cases it could imperil the adequacy of the accounting system.

    I would strongly urge readers to ignore this reasoning.

    To the contrary, it precisely relies recognizing the border between contract work and other than contract work.

  5. On 8/20/2020 at 7:08 AM, joel hoffman said:

    Unallowable direct costs can’t otherwise be charged to overhead or G&A for back door recovery. See, for instance 31.110   Indirect cost rate certification and penalties on unallowable costs. See also, 31.201-6   Accounting for unallowable costs. See also 31.202 Direct Costs, 31.203 indirect costs,  31.204   Application of principles and procedures.

    Is not a direct cost if it is for things outside of the contract.  If 1000 hours were in the contract, and 1100 delivered, the last 100 were outside the contract and hence not direct.  They were a type of business development or marketing costs.

  6. On 6/4/2020 at 5:51 PM, UseTheFARLuke said:

    Having a material handling pool won't increase G&A.  The purpose of having a material handling pool is to keep the costs out of the G&A pool.  You allocate the cost of the material handling pool to the subcontracts and procurements made by the folks in the pool.  Granted the material handling costs would be burdened with G&A in a TCI situation.  It all depends on how many contracts your company has and the size of those contracts.

    Actually, it probably will increase your G&A rate.   If materials costs are substantial, and they are or this would be a non-issue, then pulling them from the G&A base means the same G&A costs are allocated over a smaller base, meaning labor will carry a higher rate.

  7. Yes, you can cap the G&A rate that you charge the Government.  As part of your proposal state something along the line of we expect our G&A rate to be 25% but will cap the rate used to charge the Government at 15%.    No change to your accounting system is needed.  Your job cost reports from your accounting system likely will show a loss (no revenue for the 10% not charged and your fee is unlikely to fully cover those costs), but you can do that.

  8. Who decides if a position is filled?  Can one person fill two positions simultaneously?  If you are the decision maker on this matter, you should have little problem filling the positions.

    Is a fully burdened daily or hourly rate stated as part of the contract or solicitation response?  State it as $1 per hour or $1 per day in the proposal.  Hours times fully burdened rate per hour may be less than the firm fixed price.

     

     

  9. I've been handed a recently awarded GSA schedule contract, 00 CORP, which has some labor categories which are mapped to wage determination occupations.

    The documentation refers to to the wage determination 2015-4281, which is for Alexandria, Virginia.  It does not refer to a revision number.

    The revision number in place now is #16, and it was in place a few days ago at the start of the schedule contract.

    I'm wondering how to interpret this when revisions #17 and #18 come along.  Presumably they will have higher wages and H&W benefits.

    What will be the impact on the schedule labor rates?

    For example, Accounting Clerk I now has a wage of $19.10 and $4.22 in H&W.  If in revision #17 this goes to $20.00 and $5.00, what is the impact on the schedule rate?

     

  10. What happens if ....

    A contract's period of performance is over, and

    Invoices are submitted and paid, and

    a de-obligation mod is put into place and release of claims signed reflecting numbers on the de-obligation mod, and

    then it is discovered that the de-obligation mod was too aggressive in that it de-obligated money already invoiced and paid?

     

  11. Is this allowed by 52.203-5?

    Small company pays Big Company, the current prime contractor, to write a proposal with Small Company as the intended prime.  Small Company will pay a fee to Big Company contingent upon Small Company becoming the awardee, and will also have Big Company as a subcontractor.

    My interpretation is yes, it is allowed.

    I presume it makes no difference if Big Company hands the proposal to Small Company which then submits it, or if Big Company does the submitting for Small Company.

  12. On 12/23/2019 at 10:02 AM, joel hoffman said:

    Major changes to the PWS or MAJOR change to the payment terms might warrant cancellation.

    Also may depend upon the timing of the changes in the solicitation period.

    Also depends upon how many various types of changes, like described  above are collectively or simultaneously occurring. 

    Ah, but what is major?

       I would say anything that adds to the requirements placed on the contractor is major; anything that subtracts from the requirements placed on the contractor is also major; and anything that might adversely affect the contractor or contractor's rights is also major.

       Most modifications will fit in one of those categories.

  13. What changes should cause a solicitation to be cancelled and re-issued as a fresh solicitation instead of causing a modification to the solicitation?

    __ a change to the PWS other than an obvious typo correction?

    __ a change of contracting officer?

    __ a change to the CLIN structure?

    __ a change of to the CDRL's?

    __ a change of contract type on one or more CLIN's?

    __ change of payment terms (e.g., incentives, disincentives, or basis of payment?

    _ a change to the evaluation criteria?

    _ a change to the instructions to offerors?

    __ add your own cause.

  14. My little company has a FFP services contract with DoD. 

    The structure is CLIN's 1 thru 5 each corresponding to a year.  Prices are at the CLIN level, not per deliverable, or per day, or anything similar.

    Billing is in 12 equal monthly amounts, based on the full year price.

    DoD funded roughly 60% of the first year's price.  Insofar as I can tell, nothing compels DoD to fully fund it.

    Assuming DoD doesn't timely come up with funding, when should I tell the PM to pull the people from the work site?  What measure should I use to make that determination?  Would that be some cost based measure, or passage of days, or what?

  15. The cost of selling to the government is quite high.  In the end, I suspect the government pays those costs.  What systemic changes can be made to reduce the costs of selling to the government?

    A rule of thumb the Director of Business Development at my company cites is that a proposal will cost 2% to 3% of the revenue from the contract.

    If only 5 competent competitors are competing (i.e. the PWin is 1/5, or 20%), that would be 10% to 15% of revenue is spent on proposal costs.   

    Then there are other selling costs, too such as pre-RFP work.

     

     

  16.  

    My understanding is that it is measured in a manner similar to this.  Please let me know if you know otherwise.

    Total Amount Invoiced (not contract value or funded value)

    minus direct costs of Travel, Materials, and Other Non-Labor Costs (e.g., ODC's), (including such costs passed thru from the sub along with the sub's invoiced indirect costs, which become direct costs to the prime),

    equals Cost of Personnel.

          Note that indirect costs on Travel, Materials, and ODC's as part of the Cost of Personnel.  Note also that costs are counted based on Contractor's cost, whether they are invoiced to the Government or not, versus cost to the Government, which would disregard any uninvoiced costs.

          When a sub or other service provider invoices on a lump sum basis that includes Travel, Materials, and ODC's, the whole lump sum is part of the Cost of Personnel.

       

×
×
  • Create New...