X DCAA

I just post what is correct and move on. I really do not see the sense in playing your guessing games. I will respond just this once to your incorrect statements, never again. I only post when I know what I am talking about. That is why I am selective in what I respond to. About CAS -- (1) contract or contractors, subcontracts or subcontracts.., does not matter. What makes a difference (in the real world) is whether you have a Disclosure Statement because that adds an enormous amount of administrative burden on a company and it impacts what you have to do when you change the way you allocate costs because you have to issue a Cost Impact statement. Trust me, this is so over your head, just let it go. (2) Once you have determined whether you have a disclosure statement (which affects the entire company) nothing else matters whether your contracts are FULL, or modified, or not CAS covered. CAS is simply the documentation of your cost allocation practices. These practices are based on GAAP. So in the real world, CAS means nothing except whether a company needs a disclosure statement and other administrative burdens. Make pretend you have a full CAS covered CONTRACT, so you therefore have a Disclosure Statement (covers entire company). And you have three contracts, one over $50M (full), the other modified, and the other exempt.., what matters? Do they get costs allocated differently, different systems, anything different - no, it does not matter. (3) As far as the Christian doctrine, look at my post, what did I say.., I said the best way is to stick everything in. Then you never need a Christian Doctrine bologna. I am unaware of any agency that does not have software that adds in the clause that could apply., so use all of the software's clauses it spits out in your general situation, and you are covered for everything. That is how it works in the real world and it makes sense. That other post you keep bringing up about the catalog. I just assumed by now someone would have found the answer to that. That is so easy, I just let it go. Search on what catalog and commercial pricing is.., I am sure there are tons posted on it because it is a big initiative in DoD to use catalog prices. Now my reference to a real catalog to real customers is relating to the concept (that used to be embodied under SF 1412 reviews) that for a catalog to be real, you have to have a certain portion of your sales to the private sector. This equates to the catalog prices being at the correct amount based on the forces of the free market. Now if you had printed up a very nice catalog and your only customer was the government and government primes.., that would not be a real catalog. See how easy that is.., So DoD is saying, look, let's make sense, if they have a catalog that has a legitimate volume of sales to the private industry, let it go, the forces of the free market are a sufficient control on the price. As I said, this is such an easy concept and so well known in the real world, I just do not know how else to explain it.

Wow. CAS is determined by the dollar values of the awarded contracts/subcontracts a company has in its fiscal year.., there you go, forget the clauses and all that other crap. If the prime is CAS covered, then its contracts are CAS covered.., I do not want to get into the minutae of that ($50M. etc) full and modfied (some are exempt all the time), but that is what it is. As far as the subs, same thing.., goes by the dollar value. If you are subcontractor and the sub you are bidding would make you CAS covered, you are CAS covered. If you are a sub and you are already CAS covered, then your sub and everything else is CAS covered (unless it is exempt). If a FAR clause is missing.., overrated, it has no impact. I know in a classroom they tell you all the clauses matter, but in realty.. nope. You either throw all the clauses in (best idea) or try and get close and if you miss a few, so what. There are contracts that are exempt from CAS no matter what (small business, FMS, I think, sealed bid, I cannot remember, there are others). But other than that, it is pretty straighforward. So to answer your question; (1) somebody else touched on it with the prime, you do not have a choice, depending on the dollar value of the conmpany's contract awards, it is either is or it is not CAS covered. (2) the sub, depends on the dollar value and type of subcontract.

I think by now you are aware that your situation is common and nothing exists out there to help you. The reason is two fold: (1) The alleged academics who create stuff like that in the link do not work in the real world and have no grasp of reality as it relates to your limited resources, time restrictions, and evaluating risk (in your example, almost zero risk). So they copy and paste everthing they see and create a bunch of undoable crap that could only probably be accomplished if you were on am $300B program that you have 18 months to complete. and (2) The truly experienced people in the field have what you are looking for, but they cannot publicize it because the fake academics out there would tear it apart using the FAR and other out-of-touch-with-reality literature. The solution is to find those few in the field that really know the job and develop a relationship with them. Then expand your network with others that really know the job and never publish what you know - just share with trusted and capable friends. I know that is not what you wanted, but it is a start to get you on your way.

Debbie, excellent post. I would like to say also that you definitely are extremely wise when you state that the FAR leaves everything up to the KO. As it should,in my opinion. Not every organization has the same resources, to look at the same level of information, in the same time frame; and everyone agency has varying levels of quality in their support functions. So in my opinion, it is good to give the KOs vast latitude in trying to make sense of their specific situation. Let me divert you to the new definition in FAR 2 for "Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing." It is a DRASTIC change from the old vague definition of 'Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data' and gives the KO even more lattitude to make sense. The change is so new, the DFARS and PGI did not catch up yet. Stay away from looking too deeply into the FAR, it is a written by people that do not live the job, created by alleged academics that live in a dreamworld.

None of the classes that exist today will help you. Find someone around you that likes you and used to work for the old DCAA.., and absorb everything they say.

CON 090 is a waste of time and contributes significantly to the downfall of the government procurement process. I knew about the FAR Search before I went to CON 90, it took me like 5 minutes to figure that out several years ago. What was interesting from CON 90 was how FAR 52 crossreference to other clauses; the other 3 weeks, 4 day and 7 hours was a waste of time. DAU tells all the students that when they go back to their jobs that if they see something their bosses or KOs are doing that does not agree with the FAR, you call them to task. That sounds great in a classroom. In the real world, you only have the resources to do 3-4 things, but you are tasked to do 40 things, that is how it always has been and that is how it always will be. So have to do a risk assessment on what you can do and what you are going to take a zero on. This is called "living in the real world." You can imagine you what it is like when you have all these new CON 90 students walking around second guessing everything you do.

DBH you need to file an equitable adjustment. To do this, you will need a consultant - I am not a consultant because I am too lazy and I am not retired, but you need one. Here is the beauty of hiring a consultant for an equitable adjustment -- you hire the consultant once, then you can copy what he does forever and ever on all your contracts with the government. When shopping for consultants, be aware most are frauds, so ask your friends in the industry. Here is a good example of some consultants to steer clear of; (1) everything they respond to you has a FAR clause in it (that means they are guessing), or (2) they use words like "DCAA approved", which does not exist. Obviously, to recover the costs of the consultant, you need to figure that out for yourself based on your contract sizes and other cost-benefit consideration. A consultant might go for like $20K, varies wildly. If you have a high volume of cost and fixed price (does not matter) contracts, the second you are directed by the government (via email, do not let verbals direct you) to do more work or change the scope -- BOOM, file a claim. Its that easy.., It is not immoral, or bad, it is reality. Claims are how the government process has worked for decades.., it really does make sense when the government side knows what it is doing (which most do not, but some do). The down side is if you have a government office (most likely they have no idea what a claim is) that finds out you are doing this.., they might take it personal, and then you are doomed.., so its a fine line you walk. Good luck.

No question this is a valid charge. The answer is very simple. The concept is called 'Accrual' (GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). It is an Accounting 101 type thing. If you see some of my prior posts, the deterioration of DCAA is really beyond belief. In today's DCAA, it is not a shock that there are DCAA teams lacking the ability to grasp the basic concept of accrual accounting.

Good question, but it is a grey area. Just sign them and provide them. They mean nothing. Whether a customer has them or not, you are bound by all the same stuff anyway. No worries.

As you stated, you can put in anyone you want as long as they have the minimum qualifications. What is happening is DoD has to do what Shay Assad (Head of DoD policy) is saying which is "T&M are dangerous and DoD should refrain from using them." In reality, T&Ms are the best contracts on the planet. So you have a hybrid going in that DoD wants T&M type work, but that cannot ask for a T&M. So they call it all kind of different things (IDIQ, FFP-LOE, bunch of other make believe stuff). I could go on, but DCAA has access to T&M contracts, not FFP. So this is your chance to make sense.., use whatever person is qualified and you are done. Once again, always use common sense. You can do this by disregarding the FAR. Nothing in the FAR says "stop using your brain."

If I am reading this correctly. The government awarded you a CPFF contract that does not allow any burdens of any sort. Assuming that is what you are saying, here you go. You can only account for the cost of the material, your entire second paragraph is crazy. If the contract says materials without burden, that is what it means, you get your material at cost.., and that is it. This happens more often than you think, so it is not like you have some unique situation here. It mostly happens on T&M, but for some reason, the KO stuck it in this one.., Do not get too wrapped up in this one, its pretty easy.

The catalog prices are fine as long as it is a real catalog that they sell to other customers. The more accurate DCAA questions should have been does the company grant discounts to some of its customers, and if so, the government is entitled to those. Before I go on, realize that when you have a DCAA office saying 2+2 = 87 and a KO that is supporting DCAA, you already lost the war before you fight your first battle. So consider this post to be something to use in the future. The KO usually always follows DCAA, so they are not to blame. DCAA has been going down the crapper for many years now, and that is why I left. DCAA is dead wrong. I cannot give you a perfect citation, but come on - this is crazy to ask for actual costs on a commercial item. All judgment and common sense is gone from DCAA, so I will try to give you some references for the future. Feel free to throw these out. I am wondering how material this is? Is this just $10-$20K or are we talking big bucks? If we are, I might research this further.., but the bottom line is when you have an low-experienced DCAA office (which is what you have), you can have a big problem. On with some references - Look in FAR 15 for references to catalog, etc.., Tell DCAA to look at their CAM Chapter 5-1209.1(h) Suitability of catalog pricing and prepriced listing methods for developing reasonable prices for spare parts proposals, if used by the contractor. CAM 6-313( The existence of an established practice should be readily determinable from evidence such as catalogs, sales information, and delivery records. CAM 9.304(a) The data may include bills of material, vendor quotations and catalogs, blueprints, value., etc, I could go on. And the biggest one is CAM 14-907.1(a) The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 [also known as the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (FARA)] also changed the exceptions by combining the catalog or market price exception with the commercial item exception. In the past, exceptions were discretionary, now they are mandatory, i.e., cost or pricing data shall not be obtained if an exception applies. Any information requested from an offeror to support an exception is now categorized as ?information other than cost or pricing data.? Contracting officers, although still tasked with the responsibility of purchasing supplies and services at a fair and reasonable price, are instructed not to obtain more information than is necessary. What this is saying is, use common sense. You will not find common sense in the FAR.

You have multiple problems/issues here. This can still be worked out, here is some input. 1) You need to account for all of your time on the timesheets. Normally, your direct time (contracts) is charged direct and your indirect time (CEO stuff, vacation, training, sick, holiday, etc., ) goes to indirect, obviously. This should all total 2080 hours or more. 2) A CEO normally never charges direct, but there are always exceptions (especially at small companies such as yours) as long as they are consistent. So if this company's policy is to have everyone charge both direct and indirect, then so be it. 3) This company wants to charge its CEO direct. They can do this, assuming they do this consistently on all contracts and that ALL hours of all employees are recorded. However, what they cannot do is; (a) charge more time then you actually worked. If he worked and recorded 2080 hours and recorded that correctly to direct, indirect, sick, vacation, holiday, etc.., then everything is working as it should. ( in their forecast/estimate of the indirect rates (overhead, G&A whatever), they cannot place all of the CEO's costs in the indirect pools knowing that part of his time will be direct. Until you get some decent history on this company after it starts recording all of its time, just ask him to meet you in the middle and reduce his costs in the indirect pool by 50%. Then move forward. If this person fights you on these common sense issues, then take your business elsewhere if you are able. But I do not see how he could not agree to this. What concerns me is his statement about being an S corporation, that is someone trying to baffle you with b*llsh** because that is tremendously irrelevant, so be ready. 4) Last but not least you have an enormous problem. You state that the hours are based on 2050 hours for 25 positions. In addition, there are 33 holidays in the overhead rate. There are only 2080 hours in a year (260 days x 8 hours). If you remove the 33 holidays (that are and should be in the indirect (overhead) rates, that leaves (227 days x 8 hours) 1816 hours. So the estimate is overbid by 13%. This happens all the time, do not beat yourself up. Good luck.