Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About here_2_help

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 12/17/1960

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

37,306 profile views
  1. If this is factually correct, then this is reprehensible contracting. The DPAS stuff is ignorant bluster. I would not accept the order and I would dare the prime to escalate, knowing the facts would embarrass the company and might lead to CPSR findings.
  2. Actually, no. I didn't realize that happened. So Uncle Sam can be Uncle Santa Claus!
  3. general, My understanding of how this works is that you (1) notify the CO before award that you have one or more subcontractors that will perform in excess of 70% of the work, and (2) notify the CO during performance if a subcontractor that was not planned to perform in excess of 70% of the work actually does so. In either case, your company needs to provde the CO with rationale regarding your "value-added" as a prime to justify why the subcontractor charges are not excessive pass-through costs. If you've done all that, I don't believe you need a CO determination or written approval, because (from your end) you have complied with the clause requirements.
  4. I fear to step into this discussion but this, to me, highlights an interesting difference between government and commercial contracting. During the great recession of 2008 - 2011 (which, if you recall, was global), Airbus was forced to renegotiate the fixed-price deals it had with some of its suppliers. The suppliers were struggling financially. Either Airbus stepped-in or it would lose its supply chain. So it did. The old contracts were torn up and new, more favorable, contracts were negotiated. I'm not advocating a similar approach here; I'm just noting that, in the commercial marketplace, contract terms can be renegotiated when the need arises. The next time somebody says the government should operate more like the commercial marketplace, perhaps somebody should point out what that might mean.
  5. In which case, we should shut this forum down, because we are never, ever, going to have the full contract in front of us. We are never, ever, going to know all the circumstances. If any poster on this forum wants a definitive answer, they need to not post here and, instead, hire an experienced and knowledgeable attorney and/or consultant. The fact that they ARE posting here means they are accepting a less than perfect answer. In my view, sometimes one must take the OP at their word and provide an answer to their question, knowing all the time that it is an imperfect answer.
  6. Dr. Green, because the contract is a sole source, there is no competition. Because there is no competition to support price analysis, it looks like your customer is attempting to perform cost analysis. That's why you need to provide the cost information, even though the contract, when awarded, will be FFP. The others gave you the appropriate FAR references to read in order to understand where the government is coming from.
  7. Classic delay & disruption. Submit a Request for Equitable Adjustment for the cost impact of complying with the COR's direction.
  8. I'm thinking that the purpose of the PAR is to express an opinion on the supplier's proposed price, without breaking it down into individual elements of cost (which would be a CAR analysis). If so, can you simply reference your PO history and use that history to opinion on the reasonableness of the proposed price (ignoring the risk/contingency element)?
  9. Despite the OP's lack of participation, I'm interested in this scenario. I'm guessing (without a lot to go on) that this has something to do with advance consent. If so, the CO may well be justified in requesting detailed subK information (see, e.g., FAR 44.202-2(a)(8)). As many know better than I do, the consent requirements may apply in many subK award scenarios, depending on factors such as whether the contractor has an approved purchasing system, proposed subK type, and dollar value. ("The contracting officer may require consent to subcontract if the contracting officer has determined that an individual consent action is required to protect the Government adequately because of the subcontract type, complexity, or value, or because the subcontract needs special surveillance.") Anyway, just guessing here -- but it would make the OP make more sense (to me, anyway). The other interesting aspect of this scenario is the apparent desire of the prime contractor to prevent the government customer from seeing the subK's detailed proposal. Why? What is the contractor hiding? What is the subK hiding? I get the feeling that, if this is really a consent to subcontract situation, the CO may be on to something fishy in this particular proposed subK award.
  10. Folks, Assuming a cost-type contract, the answer to GtarJohn's question could be, possibly, yes. And it would be appropriate for a contractor to do so in certain, limited, circumstances. So what? That's why you government folks have DCAA. Use them to address your concerns, please.
  11. Indeed, paying some folks for EWW (straight-time) while requiring others to put in "casual overtime" (aka "sweat equity") is a great way to destroy esprit de corps. Use of EWW needs to be justified. At one company (long ago) it was justified on the basis of a large number of required OT hours to be put in over a long duration. There were certain standards -- i.e., had to be at least 5 OT hours/week over at least 8 weeks, if I recall correctly. (Related note: at this time my entire project team put in a minimum of 50 hours/week each week for more than a year. As I recall, my average work week was Monday - Friday @ 11 hours/day plus Saturday @ 8 hours plus Sunday @ 4 hours. For more than a year. Including holidays. So, yeah: pay me.) There are contract clauses that discuss "uncompensated overtime" intended to protect USG from contractors getting a competitive advantage from the use of it. Moreover, DCAA (or equivalent) is always available to review a contractor's practices in this area; and I suggest that more COs who have concerns in this area should task DCAA to address those concerns. That said, remember that, on a T&M contract, the contractor does NOT have to compensate the employees for the hours to be billable. The hours simply have to be incurred to benefit the project, whether or not the employee is getting paid for them. So concerns about this issue with respect to a T&M contract may be misplaced.
  12. What you are describing is commonly called "Extended Work Week" and, in accordance with your HR Policy regarding EWW (assuming you have one), exempt salaried employees that work approved EWW may be paid for hours in excess of 40 at straight-time rates. The contract clauses cited do not prohibit doing so, since no premium pay is involved. Have at it.
  13. No. The contractor's practices, consistently applied, determine what is a direct cost and what is not. See the FAR definition of "direct cost".
  14. Exactly! Some folks in this thread are confusing labor hour distribution, salary/wage distribution, and allowable/billable labor costs. Three things that are not the same.
  • Create New...