here_2_help

Members
  • Content count

    1,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About here_2_help

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday 12/17/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SoCal
  • Interests
    No special interests, really. Kind of a jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none kind of person.

Recent Profile Visitors

31,721 profile views
  1. DoD has been ignoring the FAR, the statute, and the express direction from Congress for years.
  2. Vern, This was a short fused trip, up and back. I did manage to spend 2 hours at Powell's, but that was it for my free time.
  3. Vern, see 52.203-13, which does specify that only certain transactions are to be considered to be subcontracts, and not others. Second, in my 35 years of doing this stuff I have never, ever, seen DCAA audit for compliance with EEO clauses. In point of fact, that happens by DCMA during CPSRs. Third, I did respond and I asked Michael what his company policies/procedures said was required for those purchases. DCAA may expect to see ... something. A while ago DCAA expected me to provide a written contractual agreement associated with paying the bill from the local electrical utility. I didn't think then (nor do I now) that was a reasonable expectation to place on a contractor. Yet by the overbroad definition of Part 44, my local electrical utility was a subcontractor. So DCAA should expect the contractor to provide whatever its policies/procedures specify should be there, nothing more. If the procedures are deficient, that should be picked up in a CPSR. I was in your neck of the woods last week, and I enjoyed the Friday weather. It was my first-ever view of Mt. Hood. Majestic!
  4. Vern, when DCAA audits for cost allowability, they do so pursuant to FAR Part 31, not FAR Part 44. Thus, I disagree with you that any definitions restricted to FAR Part 44 apply to DCAA audits concerning compliance with FAR Part 31.
  5. If Michael11 cannot come back to explain what his company's policy position is regarding establishing price reasonableness, and what his company's procurement procedures require of its buyers, then I doubt anybody here can help him with his DCAA problem. Importantly, his company was put on notice of the DCAA interest in questioning costs in this area before he was even hired; presumably they enhanced policies/procedures in preparation for the next visit from government oversight officials. If they didn't do anything, then shame on them. Michael11 should find a more responsive and responsible company to go work for. Related and potentially interesting point: I know of a company -- a fairly large and well-established contractor -- that does not require anything special in terms of justifying price reasonableness if the procurement value is less than $25K. There is a drop down box on an electronic form that lets the buyer check why the price was considered to be reasonable; that's all the support that's required. The choices in the drop down box are fairly limited. *Shrug* That contractor keeps passing CPSR after CPSR....
  6. Have you had a recent CPSR? If so, what were the findings (if any)? If not, then what do your Procurement policies/procedures say? What I'm getting at is that some ODCs DO need agreements, while others do not. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation.
  7. Joan, 1. You seem to be on the right track regarding what CAS 405 says about "directly associated unallowable costs". A cost is a directly associated unallowable cost when it is incurred solely as a result of the unallowable activity. Without checking, I think there may be an Illustration at 405-60 that would help. Regardless, think of it this way: a lobbyist travels to Washington to meet with some Staffers. The labor is unallowable, of course. But so is the airfare, even though it was the lowest cost fare and meets all the requirements of 205-46 -- because the airfare would not have been incurred "but for" the lobbying activity. That's what directly associated means. 2. The 205-6 language you quoted refers to the cost of salaried employees. If I hire a Program Manager for an annual salary of $175,000, then that salary is what I'm going to pay. Mostly that PM charges time to programs. But once in a while, the PM has to review some technology related to a possible corporate acquisition, which is otherwise unallowable. But I didn't hire the PM as a M&A person, that's just a very small part of her job. That 205-6 language says I don't need to have the PM charge an unallowable account for the time spent performing due diligence, unless it's material in amount. A very long time ago DOD issued guidance that said anything less than 30% was immaterial. (Not sure people in power today would still agree.) With respect to your question, here is my view based on the info you provided. For FPRP purposes you only need to remove unallowable labor for salaried employees if expected to be material in amount. Separately, you do not need to prorate restricted stock awards that are otherwise allowable, especially if you book the incentive comp to a non-labor account. However, if you book it to a Fringe Benefit pool, and you allocate Fringes to labor, then of course a proportionate share of Fringes needs to follow the unallowable labor. Hope this helps.
  8. Amen, Couldn't agree more.
  9. Google "Quimba Software" and see what you get at both the CoFC and ASBCA. The company also used to have a website, not sure if that's still around.
  10. A very long time ago we followed SBA direction and thus achieved an "Outstanding" rating for our socioeconomic reporting system. We identified the small business spend (by category) in each indirect pool and allocated that spending to our government contracts for the summary reporting. Each indirect pool/base has a required government participation analysis (see 52.216-7(d)(2)(iii)(H)). We used those percentages to allocate the indirect small business spend by category. For example, if the government participation in the G&A expense pool was 10%, then we said that 10% of the G&A small business spending, by category, was allocable to our government contracts. Everybody was happy with our approach. But as I noted, that was 20 years ago. Things move slowly in government contracting ... but not that slowly. I can't state with certainty that what worked in the mid-nineties would be accepted today.
  11. Joel, I'm not going to argue with you except to point out that your post started with "So ..." which I interpreted to mean "If not them, then whom?" If that was an incorrect interpretation of your post, so be it.
  12. Joel, Your post presumes the Councils are competent to do the items you list; I don't agree. I don't think there is any value-added and I would do away with them, completely.
  13. I question whether the FAR Councils, especially the DAR Council, serves any useful purpose other than do what the USD (AT&L) or the Director, Pricing, tell them to do.
  14. Vern, I didn't really miss the political dimension, I just ignored it. As I was typing my post criticizing (somewhat) "incremental" improvements, I thought it would only be fair for me to offer something that I thought would be more than an incremental improvement. So I did. Do I think my approach has a chance of being implemented by Congress? Of course not. But I felt I should offer something. Yes, government participation should be a factor in my proposed innovation. Perhaps--as you suggested--the most important point. I agree! So let's make it happen ... you get on Rocinante and I'll follow. Where's that windmill for us to attack? Sancho Panza
  15. The thing of it is that the improvements noted above are simply incremental improvements that do not address fundamental process flaws. Incremental improvements are fine! For example, if you have a fever, taking aspirin will lead to an incremental improvement and you will feel better. Unfortunately, taking aspirin will not address an underlying infection. To treat the infection, you need something stronger. Let me propose something: Instead of applying contract requirements (e.g., CAS, Davis-Bacon, Buy American, etc.) by contract type and dollar value, why not consider applying them to categories of contractor? For example, let's make "non-traditional defense contractors" (yes, that's a thing) exempt from pretty much everything and just enter into a UCC contract. Let's exempt small businesses from CAS and D-B and SCA and Buy American. (Small businesses still need to comply with CAS through FAR Part 31. Let's end that.) Let's layer on requirements as the contractor grows and matures. By the time the contractor is in the Top 100, it should have to comply with the whole enchilada. Just a thought.