govtacct02

See the discussion thread below. Does this help? http://www.wifcon.com/discus/messages/8525...html?1229794075

I was curious to see what the WIFCON community thought about the Exec Order published on January 18 requiring review of all Federal Regulations. What do you think will be the outcome? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office...executive-order

"I'm sure there are case studies to read but I'm not aware opf anything specific. Maybe others here are." The National Contract Management Association has a monthly magazine "Contract Management" that has case studies. Also, if you look into becoming certified under one of their programs, there is sure to be case studies in the test prep materials. www.ncmahq.org

Is there a university near you that might have one? Or have you tried Dale Carnegie or Fred Pryor seminars?

I am a contractor. The General Instructions of FAR Table 15.2 require that the first page of your pricing proposal include "Proposed cost; profit or fee; and total" On a FFP ID/IQ contract, what do I use as the basis for that amount - the minimum order quantity, or the maximum?

How about the interim rule "Encouraging Contractor Policies To Ban Text Messaging While Driving (FAR Case 2009-028)"?

We're implementing the new FAR clause 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards and we're wondering what the retention period would be for detailed information we collect from the subs. Is it 4 years, if treated as PO Data under 4.705-3 -- Acquisition and Supply Records? Thanks.

I searched the final rule (the below document) and the 16.505 reference is not included. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21025.pdf Am I not looking at the right thing?

Does your company have a requirement to file a CAS Disclosure Statement, and if so, what does it say therein about how you accumulate costs for training? Have you read the definitions of "Direct cost" and "Indirect cost" at FAR 2.101 ? If you are required to follow CAS 402, then you must consistently charge like costs incurred for the same purpose as either direct or indirect. CAS does not permit you to record costs as indirect just because you can't bill them. in fact, you should never make charging decisions based on lack of budget or inability to bill. In order to treat some training costs as direcrt and others indirect, you need to make the case that these are like costs, but incurred for different purposes, or different costs altogether.

FAC 2005-045 was published today, August 30, 2010 in the Federal Register. A link to the FAC is posted on the WIFCON home page. In the promulgation of the final rule for FAR Case 2008-024 "Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds", the Councils state that, in reference to a matrix of changes from the prior to the new thresholds, "the current matrix is again available and the Councils have provided a revised Web address to access it." The web address for the matrix of FAR changes that is www.regulations.gov, as referenced at FAR 1.109(d) in the final rule, but the matrix at this address is dated 2/4/10 and does not reflect the current thresholds for some of the changes. Also, the final rule is missing reference to 16.505((1)(ii) and (iii) and ((4), (it appears in the matrix) but I don't see anything in the promulgation that explains why this final rule removed this reference. Am I missing something? Thanks.

There are materials on the National Contract Management Association website as well. www.ncmahq.org

Doesn't contract audit in this case also apply to DCAA review of completion invoices or vouchers that occurs after final indirect rates are settled, per FAR 42.705-( b ), and the terms in the Allowable Cost & Payment clause at 52.216-7(d)(5), or DCAA review of completion invoices or vouchers that use the Quick Closeout Procedure described at 42.708, and the Allowable Cost & Payment clause at 52.216-7(f) - Quick Closeout Procedures?

Thanks Joel. I was aware of the DCAA document. The issue is not so much with DCAA as with individual CO's on several contracts, and this guidance is not addressed to them. They seem to be taking more restrictive interpretations of the cost prinicple than the DCAA guidance, and unfortunately someone has been accommodating them prior to this, so now there is an expectation. And to the best of my knowledge, there are no special contract clauses requiring only nonrefundable tickets.

I have been presented with a conundrum and am interested in opinions. Scenario: We have Cost Reimbursement Contracts to do service in the field. The company receives little notice to travel from the CO's; sometimes airfare is provided on Government conveyance, but it is not known until very late, so we book flights on commercial carriers to meet mission requirements. Some CO's want only to pay for nonrefundable fares, however, if we book nonrefundable fares and then the Government provides transportation, CO's are sayng it is unreasonable to charge the Government for the airfare that we did not use. One airport used frequently operates with one carrier that restricts use of tickets by only the original passenger, so we can't credit the contract and pool the tickets for other use. If we book refundable airfare and end up using it, then the new FAR Travel Cost principle may make the amount of fare in excess of nonrefundable fare unallowable. Wouldn't this be a situation to justify the use of refundable tickets (provided we document and get justification), so shouldn't we push use of refundable fares with all of our CO's on contracts like this? Has anyone else had this situation or does anyone else have any recommendations? The cost principle is excerpted below: 31.205-46 ( b ) "Airfare costs in excess of the lowest priced airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours are unallowable except when such accommodations require circuitous routing, require travel during unreasonable hours, excessively prolong travel, result in increased cost that would offset transportation savings, are not reasonably adequate for the physical or medical needs of the traveler, or are not reasonably available to meet mission requirements. However, in order for airfare costs in excess of the above standard airfare to be allowable, the applicable condition(s) set forth above must be documented and justified."

What are your thoughts on the President's memo on Imroving the Federal Hiring and Recruitment Proces as it applies to the contracting workforce?

Additionally, the contractor may find the DCAA saying they have an internal control weakness in their billing system for holding out these costs, and lots of things are causing direct billing authority to be rescinded nowadays, expanding the impact.

I understand that the Progress Payments Clause does not reference the cost principles, with the exception of 31.205-10 . Here are two excerpts from the Progress Payments Clause: 52.232-16(a)(1) "(1) Unless the Contractor requests a smaller amount, the Government will compute each progress payment as 80 percent of the Contractor?s total costs incurred under this contract whether or not actually paid, plus financing payments to subcontractors (see paragraph (j) of this clause), less the sum of all previous progress payments made by the Government under this contract. The Contracting Officer will consider cost of money that would be allowable under FAR 31.205-10 as an incurred cost for progress payment purposes." 52.232-16 (a) (4)" The Contractor shall not include the following in total costs for progress payment purposes in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause: (i) Costs that are not reasonable, allocable to this contract, and consistent with sound and generally accepted accounting principles and practices." The cost principles stipulate that: 31.201-6 (a) "Costs that are expressly unallowable or mutually agreed to be unallowable, including mutually agreed to be unallowable directly associated costs, shall be identified and excluded from any billing, claim, or proposal applicable to a Government contract." (Emphasis is on "ANY billing") DCMA and DCAA have issued guidance related to Progress Payments Based on Cost that uses the terms "allowable" and "unallowable" - terms that are defined in the FAR Cost Principles: DCMA Guidebook - Progress Payments Based on Cost - Process Description Paragraph #8 - Approve/Disapprove/Reduce Progress Payment - first bullet "Disallowance of Cost: Reductions for disallowance of cost occur when unallocable/unallowable costs have been billed under progress payments." http://guidebook.dcma.mil/32/guidebook_process.htm DCAA Audit ProgramTfor Progress Payments Based on Costs Incurred (17500) "The objective of progress payments is to provide the contractor with interim financing for a percentage (stated in contract) of allowable costs incurred for undelivered and uninvoiced items." Why would DCMA and DCAA use such terms if the cost principles did not apply ?

Is it possible to have a Fixed price contractual arrangement with an affiliate, but treat the cost as if it were cost reimburseable ?

Under a prime contract that includes the Progress Payments clause at 52.232-16, how is a contract financing payment request or non-financing payment request from an affiliate who does not qualify for transfers at price under the FAR Material Cost Principle at 31.205-26(e) supposed to be treated in the Prime's payment request? Must every billing that includes a payment request from the affiliate adjust the affiliates billing to be on the basis of actual allowable costs? (Even if the contractural arrangement with affiliate is not Cost Type).

A CAS Coverage Decision Tree appears in on page 809 in Chapter 8 of the DCAA Contract Audit manual, found at www.dcaa.mil as another reference.

Seems to fly in the face of the requirement at FAR 3.101, Standards of Conduct - "Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach..."

Executive Order (E.O.) 13946 included a directive that contracting departments and agencies treat as ?unallowable? the costs of activities undertaken to persuade employees -- whether employees of the Contractor or of any other entity -- to exercise or not to exercise (or concerning the manner of exercising), the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of the employees? own choosing. Examples included in the Order include preparing and distributing materials, hiring or consulting legal counsel or consultants, holding meetings (including payment of employees? wages while attending such meetings), and costs of planning or conducting activities by managers, supervisors, or union representatives during work hours. The E.O. went on to say that notwithstanding the directive, "contracting departments and agencies shall treat as allowable costs incurred in maintaining satisfactory relations between the contractor and its employees, including costs of labor-management committees, employee publications (other than those undertaken to persuade employees to exercise or not to exercise, or concerning the manner of exercising, the right to organize and bargain collectively), and other related activities. " The order required that within 150 days (or by June 29, 2009) the FAR Council to adopt rules and regulations necessary to carry out the order. I haven't seen anything published. Does anyone know the status?

Please help me resolve some confusion on my part with regard to when subcontractor cost or pricing data is required to be submitted with a prime contract proposal. For illustration purposes, the prospective subcontractor would be covered by TINA. I am looking at FAR 15.403-4 and FAR Table 15.2. FAR 15.403-4 ( c ) states "Any contractor or subcontractor that is required to submit cost or pricing data also shall obtain and analyze cost or pricing data before awarding any subcontract, purchase order, or modification expected to exceed the cost or pricing data threshold, unless an exception in 15.403-1( b ) applies to that action. (1) The contractor shall submit, or cause to be submitted by the subcontractor(s), cost or pricing data to the Government for subcontracts that are the lower of either -- (i) $11.5 million or more; or (ii) Both more than the pertinent cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10 percent of the prime contractor?s proposed price, unless the contracting officer believes such submission is unnecessary. (2) The contracting officer may require the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the Government (or cause submission of) subcontractor cost or pricing data below the thresholds in paragraph ( c )(1) of this subsection that the contracting officer considers necessary for adequately pricing the prime contract." FAR Table 15-2 , para. IIA States "Conduct price analyses of all subcontractor proposals. Conduct cost analyses for all subcontracts when cost or pricing data are submitted by the subcontractor. Include these analyses as part of your own cost or pricing data submissions for subcontracts expected to exceed the appropriate threshold in FAR 15.403-4. Submit the subcontractor cost or pricing data as part of your own cost or pricing data as required in paragraph IIA(2) of this table. II(A) (2) All Other. Obtain cost or pricing data from prospective sources for those acquisitions (such as subcontracts, purchase orders, material order, etc.) exceeding the threshold set forth in FAR 15.403-4 and not otherwise exempt, in accordance with FAR 15.403-1( b ) (i.e., adequate price competition, commercial items, prices set by law or regulation or waiver). Also provide data showing the basis for establishing source and reasonableness of price. In addition, provide a summary of your cost analysis and a copy of cost or pricing data submitted by the prospective source in support of each subcontract, or purchase order that is the lower of either $11.5 million or more, or both more than the pertinent cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10 percent of the prime contractor?s proposed price." My question: Is Paragraph II(A)(2) of Table 15.2 consistent with 15.403-4 ( c ) in saying that you are only required to submit with your proposal summaries of cost analysis and a copy of cost or pricing data submitted by the prospective source in support of each subcontract, or purchase order that is the lower of either $11.5 million or more, or both more than the pertinent cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10 percent of the prime contractor?s proposed price - and there is not a requirement to submit cost or price analysis for every single subcontractor that is over $650,000 and not otherwise exempt from TINA? (provided that the CO does not require you to submit cost or pricing data below the threshold in 15.403-4 ( c ) (1) as described in 15.403-4 ( c ) (2)) Thanks.

The refernce to item b in the prescription at 15.209 is coming through on the post as a smiley face...sorry.

If you read the prescription for the clause at FAR 15.209(, if the item is a Commercial item, then it appears that the clause at 52.215-2 does not apply unless per 15.209((2) "When using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5)".