FAR Fetched

You should also be tax exempt for the sale of your goods. Your customer will have the same. An external auditor (from my experience) will only need to see the direct link between the sale to your customer and the use of those goods in performing on an ANG contract. So you shouldn't pay taxes for selling them and your customer shouldn't pay taxes for selling to the ANG.

Says who?

It's a Firm Fixed Price contract. I'm assuming the Contractor is showing the cost of salaries only as a basis for it's proposed Price. The Salaries going down doesn't necessarily mean they will actually pay lower salaries during the performance of the contract - It’s a risk by the Contractor that a bigger pool of employees will be available and/or the Contractor will develop efficiencies during the out years to lower its overall costs. Either way, I don't see it as unbalanced at all.

IP rights are complicated. It's really not a good idea to find a solution on a message board. You need to contact law firm that deals with IP rights, preferably one with a lot of Government contracting experience. Especially if you believe your company developed something that can be sold to other companies and/or agencies.

Thanks all and yes I agree there are few ways to escalate this without hurting feelings and ruining my company name. It's only a few employees and it's pretty far from our offices so our company has very little visibility in the chain of command there. I have a Prince of Darkness but for an agency where most of our work is. It's really not worth pulling him away from our main customer, putting him on a plane to try and smooth over things at a new agency for a handfull of billable FTEs. To H2H’s point, it’s been made very clear to us that the contractor employees and some of the gov employees go to the same church – not saying that in itself is wrong but we know they’re close outside of work too. It’s a new area for us and we looked at it as a way in the door but obviously things are rough right now. I’m even considering trying a contract novation to a company that has more visibility (and ‘well liked’) at that location just to avoid 'sleeping with the fishes'. It's really a lesson learned, we basically jumped into a new market without spending enough time to learn the lay of the land.

The problem: we (company) have a T&M contract. The agency is close to the employees and wants them to get salary raises. We’ve given raises to all employees at a minimum 2% up to 5% each year but the agency wants ‘significant increases in their salaries since we’re making so much money!!’. We’ve submitted our certified cost buildup for each rate prior to award; they have our cost buildup for each rate and they know the employee's salary (they should know I'm losing money). I’ve requested several meetings with the CO to discuss economic adjustment for the rate or to put the employees in different labor categories IF they want raises for the employees. The email response I got was “you pay them $Xhr and charge us $Xhr, how about sharing some of that ‘profit’ with the employees! You charge us almost double what you pay the employees and put the rest in your pocket!!” (yes, in an email). This is a contract won from an incumbent (same employees surviving multiple contract holders); I paid the employees exactly what they made the prior year +2-3% increase while bidding a rate a bit lower than the incumbent. I’m already stretched – but that’s my problem - I'm not asking for more money, they want me to give the employees raises without changing the rate. In my mind, the statements from the CO are absurd. I tried contacting a contracting department head but this CO is apparently the ‘senior CO’ (whatever that means) and the other CO’s aren’t helping out in finding this CO's 'boss'. What are my options?

Wait wait wait. Is this a JV or not? Is yes, is the JV populated or unpopulated? Is this a question of subcontracting to a JV entity (hense the populated/unpopulated questions)?

Why would a private company make this mandatory? For all procurement? It is silly.

I think it has to do with the individual. I don't need the support that I needed 15 years ago, so working in an organization that had tons of approval levels would annoy me to no end. I started in Government as a Contract Specialist, it was good at the time and I learned a lot from the CO I worked for. Fast forward 15 years, I could never go back to that agency. I'm much happier in a small company with a few direct reports; I report to the president and outside councel is my support system. For 'me', it's perfect. I'm not sure that would work for many other people. It's a lot of responsibility and I rarely have a vacation day that I don't end up on the phone or in front of a computer for something...and I love it. For me, the perfect job is one where I make a difference, my opinion matters and I'm needed.

The Corps' message to Martin was "we want you to perform the additional work specified in the modifications, but you are still in default because the completion date (already passed) remains the same." Unreal.

Did you issue both tasks as one solicitation and the company wants separate contracts post-award? If they?re separate solicitations and one company with two separate divisions just so happen to win, I don?t see the issue as long as there?s no OCI (e.g. one division creating a widget, the other one testing). What are the operational possibilities for ?finger-pointing? between the two divisions? The projects seem closely related; maybe an MOU or ACA should be established to remove the government from liability should there be any ambiguities that arise during performance.

I think the problem is years ago I put proposals in to a CO, that were reviewed by COs and managed by COs with the help of CORs. Now, I turn proposal in to a Contract Specialist (who is usually contract company employee) who has zero authority and basically manages emails and phone calls. They usually defer my questions to the COR who then makes the decision and I finally get a modification with a CO?s name whom I've never heard of (usually months later). It seems the agencies (at least in the DC Beltway) have less CO s and more 'contract specialists' then ever.

True, thanks

You are correct, but 18+ years in the business tells me that telling the COTR what he can and can't do isn't a good idea. Like I said, I make a business decision which usually includes many other factors (e.g. I'm in the middle of another proposal w/same GCustomer and don't want to piss them off). A government employee would never hold a grudge if I called them out on their authority, right? right...

So does FAR 32.704( c) apply in the following circumstance? IDIQ Contract with FFP Orders. Total Funded IDIQ Contract is $1M; 10 Orders are issued to the Contractor at 100k each. The Orders are to install 10 widgets (each widget costs 10k) in 10 different locations throughout the US. The widgets are installed at the 10 locations by one site at a time. The installation team gets to the first site and it's determined by the COTR that additional 2 widgets will be required to complete that site. The additional widgets/labor will be 20k more for the one site. The COTR directs the installation team to install the additional widgets and an Order modification will follow later. Until the modification is done, the Contractor performs the service at Risk by the direction of COTR. If the waits for the modification Contractor doesn't perform the additional requirement right away, it would affect the schedule of all 10 sites. I've been in this situation countless times as the Contractor and have made the decision to install the widgets at risk as a business decision. I usually get paid, but sometimes I don't? Question: Can the COTR direct this as his authority is delegated by the CO? If I didn?t get paid, did I perform voluntary services? Although at the time of the first installation there's plenty of funding to cover the additional 20k, but once the Contractor completes the other 9 sites, the funding will be fully exhausted.

Something that should also be noted - If you're forming a Joint Venture with other Small Businesses, it's unlikely that there's a mentor prot?g? program in place; meaning you'll be affiliated and thus the revenue of all three companies will be considered and may be collectively over the NAICS code revenue requiements. Also, to your point about Subcontracting. There's also guildelines for populated and unpopulated joint ventures. 13 C.F.R. ? 124.513(d)(2)(i). Unpopulated JVs: the 8(a) partner must perform at least 40% of all of the work done by JV partners (including all work done by the non-8(a) partner and any of its affiliates at any subcontracting tier). Populated JVs: the 8(a) partner must demonstrate how it will benefit or otherwise develop its business from the JV relationship. If this is your first shot at doing this (guessing it is), you better see a pro as the rules are complex have recently changed a bit (early this year).

Just finished Ahead of the Curve by Philip Delves Broughton I suggest this book an audio as the author's English accent made this book enjoyable; great listening for a commute.

Is it class, SBU or non-class information.

A current solicitation describes the following: Vern noted that some agencies were doing this in a publication on Time-and-Materials Contracts. I understand the intention on the part of the Government, but has anyone seen this backfire or on the Government or Contractor? Things to note prior to bidding on this type of contract? FAR 16.601(a) A time-and-materials contract provides no positive profit incentive to the contractor for cost control or labor efficiency. Therefore, appropriate Government surveillance of contractor performance is required to give reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used. In this case, the Government has managed to come up with a penalty or negative incentive. Is it possible to add a positive incentive under at Time and Material contract? In the solicitation above, there's an incentive to do the job to expectations, but no profit incentive to exceed expectations.

Also, there's a big difference in contracting for armed security and the security contractor having the local authority to "arrest" an intruder on foreign soil. You need to call the pros on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Can you explain the bolded part? Type of contract (IDIQ base w/options etc). Why was the extention "unexpected"?

It's proportionate to the amount of Federal agencies in the Beltway area. The area also draws and keeps a lot of personnel/resources that other States can't. The Companies around the Beltway have more resources to work harder at getting the contracting work. Example, do a search on Monster for Contract Administration jobs - there's 1 in the entire state of Kansas; there's 107 in the state of VA - almost all in the Northern part of VA for Government Contractors. There's a reason why Vern does his classes in Crystal City instead of Montpelier Vermont. Most of the agencies are in or around the beltway; when someone retires from an agency and wants to do consulting work, they're most likely going to choose a company that doesn't require them to relocate which again keeps the resources local. The only way to even out the Federal spending to companies per state is to spread out the agencies throughout the states.

I'll bite The simplified acquisition is described in subpart 13.1 ? 13.101(a) contracting officers shall (1) Comply with the policy in 7.202 relating to economic purchase quantities, when practicable. 7.202 (a) Agencies are required by 10 U.S.C. 2384(a) and 41 U.S.C. 253f to procure supplies in such quantity as (1) Will result in the total cost and unit cost most advantageous to the Government, where practicable; and (2) Does not exceed the quantity reasonably expected to be required by the agency. I?m not sure if your office's definition of "exceeds" means most advantageous to the Government or "exceeds" the requirements of the solicitations. If it's the latter, I think you may be unfairly considering criteria not in the solicitation as basis for your decision.

You should have shared this nugget of information sooner.