Justice1 replied to Justice1's topic in Contract AdministrationTo Retreadfed's comment, let me provide a little more detail. Over the 4 years audited, DCAA found that we should have billed some costs that we had considered unallowable (thereby increasing our adjusted costs), and they also found other costs unreasonable and disallowed. While the issues were consistent over the audited years, the amounts varied by year and as a result our net costs were up in task orders and down in others. With each task, the ceiling had been fully funded and we billed virtually all of the funded amount. So....with the impact of the rate adjustments, at the Contract Level we now have task orders with unused ceiling/funding (because we will be paying back the government) but also task orders that the government owes us money (but would go beyond the task order ceiling and funded amount). Because the task orders were for the same customer/work, my hope is that the Contract Officer has the discretion to use the unused ceiling / funding from the task orders that we pay back to cover the task orders with cost overruns as the two basically balance out. The case that Here to Help provided (very helpful thank you!) seems to indicate that the contract officer CAN decide to treat each task order as its own contract... I'm just wondering if the contract officer has discretion / flexibility and/or if anyone has seen it settled at the Contract level across multiple task orders. This was our first cost plus IDIQ, so quite a few lessons learned!
Justice1 posted a topic in Contract AdministrationOur company had a 5-year IDIQ Cost plus fixed fee contract with the Department of Defense. With the delays in the DCAA audit process we are just now beginning to close out task orders from 2011-2013. There are limitation on cost / limitation on funds clauses at both the task order and contract level, and we informed the government when we were at 75%. However, because of the adjustments made by the DCAA audits, years later we have now found ourselves with an unexpected adjusted cost overrun on one task order and an adjusted task under-spend on another. These task orders were for the same tasking / customer just different POPs. We are concerned about having a cost overrun on a task order, but taken together we have a net under-spend. Can the Contract Officer choose to settle adjusted costs for multiple task orders against each other (i.e. at the contract level)?