Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content Count

    2,022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

2 Followers

About here_2_help

  • Rank
    Contributing 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

36,645 profile views
  1. Note that Joel's link goes to a memo, directed at DCMA contracting officers, regarding how to respond when DCAA asserts a contractor's proposal is inadequate. From my reading, it does not address actions when the CO determines the proposal is not adequate--though obviously a parallel process would be followed in terms of file documentation.
  2. Can we agree that this issue can be negotiated? Can we agree that Sunstrider can use the historical pricing he has as his negotiation objective? Or perhaps go even lower if prices are trending down in the supplier's industry? To me, it seems straightforward. Sunstrider simply declares that the government won't pay any more than X. Put the pressure on the prime to justify why X is too low. That justification may well include the information that Sunstrider needs. If it doesn't, then Sunstrider can reject the prime's justification as being inadequate (for all the reasons mentioned in this thread) and stick to X. Post-award, if Sunstrider believes it's warranted, he can request a review of the prime contractor's estimating system. Post-award, Sunstrider can request a post-award (defective pricing) review by DCAA. My point is, Sunstrider has a strategy available to overcome the barriers erected by the prime contractor.
  3. Emphasis added. Please show me where in the FAR definition of "cost or pricing data" suppliers' names are included. Certainly the suppliers' names are facts, but I contend that suppliers' names are not any kind of facts that prudent buyers and sellers would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly. Therefore the names do not meet the definition of "cost or pricing data" and do not need to be disclosed for TINA compliance purposes.
  4. Joel, would you agree that if the prime had adequate price competition, it could use price analysis to determine that the proposed subcontractor's price was fair and reasonable. Assuming that was the case, what else does the government need to know? What other information could reasonably be expected to affect price negotiations significantly? Please identify which cost or pricing data the prime has not provided with respect to its proposed subcontractor cost.
  5. I tend to agree with Neil Roberts on this one. The government wants to negotiate a sole-source FFP prime contract. As part of its proposal, the prime has submitted a proposed price for a subcontractor. The prime determined the price to be fair and reasonable based on obtaining adequate competition. The prime has provided the source evaluation and selection notes to the government as part of its cost or pricing data. The government is concerned that the source evaluation or selection notes are not robust. In particular, the apparent winning subcontractor is not identified by name. The issue is not compliance with TINA as the prime has obtained adequate price competition (or asserts that it has done so). The issue is whether or not the proposed price for the subK is fair and reasonable. This is a matter for negotiation. Perhaps start by saying that you will accept the low bid rather than the one the prime has chosen to support its price (assuming the chosen subK is other than lowest price). See what the prime does in response. As Neil Roberts noted, the government will have post-award audit rights to see whether or not the proposal was defectively priced because the prime didn't include all cost or pricing information. I agree that the government should use those rights. In the meantime, negotiate hard using the lack of information as the basis for mitigating the government's risks.
  6. Is the prime contract cost-type or FFP? Is the proposed subK cost-type or FFP?
  7. here_2_help

    Bottoms-up pricing

    Probably. That contractor was all over the DOE's nuclear weapons complex, winning award after award, taking "bet the company" risk after risk. It lost.
  8. here_2_help

    Problem of the Day--Pricing Contingencies

    But wait. If the contractor did not price Precaution A or B into its FFP, then those hypothetical precautions are meaningless. Under Precaution A, you should allow $77,000 + $50,000 = $127,000. You need to allow the contractor to price in the cost of risk mitigation.
  9. here_2_help

    Exempt EE's working LESS than 40 hours

    Right. Got it. So ... not relevant information.
  10. here_2_help

    Exempt EE's working LESS than 40 hours

    Which government contractors are doing that? Please be specific.
  11. here_2_help

    Exempt EE's working LESS than 40 hours

    Because of FLSA requirements regarding overtime. Look, I'm done discussing this. I've given you my best answers. I am not a labor law attorney and, if you want to discuss FLSA requirements, I suggest you hire one for a consultation. Why don't you do what you want to do and let us all know how it turns out. If DCAA (or the Dept. of Labor) buys off on your practices, you can post here and I will admit I've been wrong!
  12. Interesting you bring up acceptance as a defense. In the January 2016 edition of Government Contract Costs, Pricing & Accounting Report (Volume 11, Issue 1), authors Jerome Gabig and Michael Steen argue that whether or not the government can "revoke its acceptance of the services" is governed by FAR 46.501 and the contract's acceptance clause (which may be 52.246-6, Inspection-Time-and-Material and Labor-Hour). The authors point to paragraphs (e) and (j) of that clause. The authors assert that "after acceptance, the Government has relinquished its right to question whether the services were performed by unqualified personnel unless otherwise 'specified in the contract'." The authors note that, if the government has not relinquished all post-acceptance rights, the parties would look to 52.246-20, Warranty of Services, if it is in the contract. The assert that if the clause, or one similar to it, is not found in the contract (it's not mandatory), then "there is no exception to the acceptance [of services] being conclusive without any right of the Government to challenge the qualifications of the employee performing the work." If the clause, or one similar to it, is found in the contract, then "rather than disallow the entire cost incurred by the Government for the services performed by the unqualified employee, the Government is entitled only to the difference between the labor category charged and the correct labor classification of the employee who actually performed the work." In this case, it seems the government would be entitled to nothing as there would presumably be no price difference between a properly trained employee and the one who performed the work. Hope this helps.
  13. Fascinating thread. The focus is (properly) on the contracting issues, but will somebody please think of the poor accountants who have to submit invoices on this charliefoxtrot? Who is incurring the costs and who is billing the customer? Who gets to record the revenue? How is profit calculated? Who is paying the IFF? Even in the best of circumstances, novations are challenging for the contracting folks and they are a nightmare for the accounting folks. This scenario is far from the best of circumstances.
  14. here_2_help

    space cowboys, weed, safety, and NASA

    How are SpaceX services not commercial items?
  15. here_2_help

    Far 51. 215 - 13

    Cewheaton, As others have said, even if the contract was awarded on a competitive basis, any MODIFICATIONS to that contract will not be. Since you have the contract in hand, any modifications will be made on a sole/single source basis. Accordingly, pricing for mods is not exempt from (certified) cost or pricing data requirements. Looking at your subs, if you are awarding a subcontract and no TINA exception applies to that award, then you have to obtain (certified) cost or pricing data for that subcontract action. If you don't, your subK managers will have difficulty passing their next CPSR.
×