Jump to content

HitTheNutz

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HitTheNutz

  1. Since FAR 15.001 defines a "deficiency" separate from a "weakness"; I would think the CO must differentiate them accordingly. Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
  2. H2H - Thank you for your reply. There are interpretations out there (not mine); that the Class Deviation memorandum exempts the SBIR contract < $7.5M from any and all audit activity...period....from beginning to end of the contract lifecycle. So no ICS adequacy review, no PBR, no IC audit/LRM, no floor checks, no post-award accounting system audits, no interim billing reviews, no nothing. This interpretation would be based on the fact that the contractor is exempt from FAR 52.215-2 - and that is the clause that audit organizations hang their hat on to perform audit activity. Thanks,
  3. Thank you Mr. Edwards for your reply. The reason I posted this topic is that there is interpretation that the subject class deviation memorandum, and specifically the language regarding FAR 52.215-2, exempts a SBIR contract < $7.5M from ALL audit activity (e.g., pre-award audits, provisional billing rate reviews, labor floor checks, incurred cost audits, post-award accounting system audits, labor floor checks, etc.) regardless of the clauses actually included in the contract. In the hypothetical above, there is interpretation that even if the contractor submits an incurred cost submission per FAR 52.216-7, it would not be auditable based on the class deviation memorandum expressly overriding the clause at FAR 52.215-2. I interpreted the class deviation memorandum as geared towards forward pricing (i.e., streamlining awards), in that contractor’s are not required to submit CCPD for SBIR pricing actions valued at less than $7.5M and contractor’s proposals for SBIR contracts valued at less than $7.5M are not auditable. However, as stated above, some are interpreting it as an exemption from all audit activity on SBIR contracts < $7.5M. Thanks.
  4. Hi Mr. Edwards. It is my understanding that each class deviation memorandum expires October of the current fiscal year; and that for the last five years, the DoD has extended the memorandum another year. Class Deviation Memorandum No. 2022-O0005 is the current extension which expires October 1, 2022.
  5. Thanks Mr. Hoffman and I agree. I meant to select "Contract Administration" but mistakenly selected "Contracting Workforce". Thanks,
  6. Assumptions: (1) Contractor has only one contract; (2) Contract is a SBIR contract valued at less than $7.5M and is the CPFF type; (3) SBIR contract contains the clauses at at FAR 52.216-7 and 52.215-2. Class Deviation Memorandum 2018-O0009 labeled “Pilot Program for Streamlining Awards for Innovative Technology Projects” states the following: "In addition, contracts, subcontracts, and modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded to a small business concern ... pursuant to ... the Small Business Innovation Research Program are exempt from the requirements for audit and records examination under the clause at FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records-Negotiations." Question 1: What takes precedence? (A) If the SBIR contract contains the clause at FAR 52.215-2, does the contract term take precedence and apply? OR (B) If the SBIR contract contains the clause at FAR 52.215-2, does the class deviation memo take precedence and exempt them from the contact clause? Question 2: At year end, does the contractor have to submit an incurred cost submission (ICS) related to this contract? If so, would that ICS be auditable by DCAA (i.e., could the contractor claim that the ICS is not auditable by DCAA because they are exempt from FAR 52.215-2)?
  7. If DCAA is questioning idle facilities costs during the height of a worldwide pandemic; my first two questions to DCAA would be (1) What is the current staffing situation in your GSA leased office spaces (i.e., are the DCAA auditor's in-office or teleworking)? and (2) Is the Government still footing the bills for those leases when USG employees are still in maximum telework?
  8. Hi Retreadfed - Unfortunately, I do not emphatically know the answer to that question. I am fairly certain it does not include this clause as this is not a newly awarded contract; but one which was already in place. Thanks,
  9. Hi H2H - I appreciate your input. If the contractor chose to employ the scenario you described above (i.e., billing the vaccination incentive direct to a contract for employees working solely on that contract), wouldn't that automatically preclude them from including the vaccination incentives paid to indirect employees in an indirect cost pool? Because doing so would cause them to violate FAR 31.203(b) and CAS 402 which requires that all costs incurred for the same purpose, in like circumstances, are either direct costs only or indirect costs only with respect to final cost objectives? I would think the costs associated with vaccine incentives paid to direct employees vs. those paid to indirect employees are incurred for the same purpose and in like circumstances (to keep employees safe and working/on-the-job) - so couldn't it only be one or the other (direct or indirect, not both)? Thanks,
  10. Mr. Edwards - I do not know why the contractor is doing that. All I have is that the contractor is "...offering an incentive of $500 to employees who receive the COVID-19 vaccine or have secured an approved medial or religious exemption from receiving the immunization." You have raised a great point though. I suppose incentivizing employees to secure an exemption from the mandate is counterproductive to the end goal and purpose of the mandate itself - i.e., for federal contractors to get their employees vaccinated. Now that I think about it, paying employees to obtain an exemption from receiving the vaccine likely wouldn't be covered under FAR 31.205-13(a) as the exemption wouldn't promote the employees' health, wellness, or fitness.
  11. Thank you for your recommendation ji20874 and thank you to the other members for providing their opinions. This topic is related to an already awarded cost-type prime contract and the contractor is currently billing these incentive payments as a direct contract cost to the Government. The contractor is not distinguishing the incentives between those employees obtaining a vaccine and those receiving an approved exception (i.e., the incentive is paid equally for either achievement). My argument would be that the costs of incentive payments provided to contractor employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or to secure an approved exemption would be allowable per FAR 31.205-13(a), Employee Health/Welfare/Wellness Costs - as previously expressed by other members. The reason I posted this here is that others do not share that same opinion on allowability. However, my opinion is that these incentive costs can only be billed as indirect costs through an indirect pool such as Fringe or G&A. I do not agree with these incentive costs being billed as direct because there is no explicit contract requirement for the contractor to provide the incentive payments related to vaccines and the incentive payments do not benefit a single final cost objective. In addition, the contractor is offering this incentive to all employees (direct AND indirect); so in my opinion, it would violate FAR 31.203(b) and CAS 402 if they billed the incentives paid to direct employees as direct costs of contracts and included the incentives paid to indirect employees in an indirect cost pool. Thanks again everyone.
  12. I apologize if this has already been asked. I tried searching the forum but could not locate this topic. I would like to solicit opinions on the allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of costs (either as direct or indirect) associated with a Federal contractor paying its employees' incentives (i.e., $100-$500) to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or secure an approved medical or religious exemption from receiving the vaccine. Federal contractor asserts the incentive costs are necessary/allowable to comply with the recent Executive Order mandating compliance for all Federal Contractors to be 100% vaccinated. Thanks in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...