Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content Count

    2,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

4 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

37,771 profile views
  1. Anybody look to see how much Section 809 Panel stuff made it in?
  2. Is it possible that somebody looked at the situation and decided it costs the government more to process the mod, including reviews and entry into MOCAS, than the actual value of the mod? As a contractor, should I be terminated for convenience I look at my open Purchase Orders to see which ones I should terminate. In some cases, it is cheaper to let the supplier perform and deliver versus terminate for convenience. (My Purchasing Manual describes those circumstances and typically sets a dollar threshold.) It's actually a cost avoidance to refrain from TforC. I'm wondering whether somebody made a similar call with respect to mods -- less than $1,000, then refrain.
  3. Thanks Don. Much appreciated. What are they doing in my contract? (Rhetorical question.)
  4. Well, I can't speak to the FAR Council's intentions. If the term is ambiguous, interpret it to your advantage. Contra proferentem.
  5. I'm researching a payment issue and came across a series of DFARS clauses under the general heading "payment instructions." These clauses all start with 252.204 and range from 252.204-0001 through 252.204-0011. I cannot find these clauses in my various searches of the DFARS. All the clauses I see start with 252.204-7xxx. Yet, at least one of these secret clauses is incorporated into my contract, so apparently my company is required to comply with the associated payment instructions. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. Can somebody please tell me why I can't find these contract clauses in the DFARS list of contract clauses, and what the prescription is for their use?
  6. While I think about this question, let me offer my first observation. You are wrong that the government only has the right to examine transactions under Part 12. Read the clause again. Both clauses expressly mention "records" and both clauses reference FAR 4.7, which establishes record retention periods. The Part 12 access pertains to records involving transactions directly related to the contract, whereas (as you note) the Part 15 clause is more expansive. But to my mind your focus should be on records not transactions. More to follow as time permits.
  7. If you are a CAS-covered contractor, consistency between direct and indirect costing is mandated. So is consistency between cost accounting practices used in estimates, cost accounting, and reporting. If you are not a CAS-covered contractor, FAR Part 31 has similar (but not identical) guidance that applies to you. So I'm not fully on board with your position that what an individual contract allows (or doesn't allow) for billing purposes has a significant impact on cost accounting practices for the entire company. I'm also not in alignment with your statement that higher overhead leads to a higher bid price. From my point of view, the relationship is not as straightforward as your statement would have it be. For example, more overhead dollars could be allocated to more contracts (depending on the allocation base used), meaning that the other contracts would absorb some of the overhead that would have been charged to the instant contract, meaning the bid price for the instant contract would be lower than it otherwise would have been. Direct vs. indirect costing decisions and establishment of cost allocation structures are jobs for experts in the art of government contract cost accounting. I don't know whether or not you are one. But if not, then I would recommend your company find one.
  8. I'm sorry. Your original post seemed focused only on the Comptroller General access. That's what I answered. Apologies if I misinterpreted your question.
  9. I'm not seeing a big difference. 52.215-2 states: "(1) The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative, shall have access to and the right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract or a subcontract hereunder and to interview any current employee regarding such transactions. (2) This paragraph may not be construed to require the Contractor or subcontractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor or subcontractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law." 52.212-5(d) states: "(1) The Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of the Comptroller General, shall have access to and right to examine any of the Contractor’s directly pertinent records involving transactions related to this contract. … (3) As used in this clause, records include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of form. This does not require the Contractor to create or maintain any record that the Contractor does not maintain in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to a provision of law." FAR 4.7 states that the term "records" encompasses "books, documents, accounting procedures and practices, and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are in written form, in the form of computer data, or in any other form, and other supporting evidence to satisfy contract negotiation, administration, and audit requirements of the contracting agencies and the Comptroller General...." FAR 4.7 identifies the following categories of records: (1) Financial and cost accounting records, (2) Pay administration records, and (3) Acquisition and supply records. Even though FAR 4.7 does not reference 52.212-5(d), the language within 52.212-5(d) references 4.7. One clause expressly grants interview access to current employees; the other does not. One clause contemplates a flow-down to subcontractors; the other does not. Aside from those differences, I do not see any other significant difference in the audit access granted to the Comptroller General of the United States or authorized representative. Am I missing something?
  10. CA2012-- As a contractor, it is your responsibility (not the client's) to determine your direct vs. indirect charging practices, keeping in mind the definitions of direct cost and indirect cost found in both FAR and the Cost Accounting Standards. It sounds as if you may be calculating a contract-specific overhead rate to be allocated to active Task Orders. That can be done, of course, but it's tricky in exactly the area (direct vs. indirect) you are asking about. It's tricky because you will have people charging directly to the active Task Orders and other people charging "directly" to a PMO or similar charge code for subsequent allocation to those Task Orders. (CAS 418 calls these "pooled" or "blanket" costs.) All this is going one while you still have your "normal" overhead for indirect expenses such as training, etc. As I said, tricky. Apologies if I've read into your question more than you intended. In any case, you--the contractor--must have adequate policies and other command media to ensure you consistently charge your labor and other costs as either direct or indirect. It one of the basic requirements for an "adequate" accounting system.
  11. Not disagreeing with Ibn … and here's a supplementary definition for accountants. https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/what-is-an-accounting-transaction.html
  12. Yes, in my opinion AbilityOne contracts are exempt from submission of certified cost or pricing data [15.403-1(b)(3)] and from CAS coverage (you cited correctly above). Accordingly, while the Accounting System Administration clause may be included (as per the prescription at 242.7503), the resulting contract is not a "covered contract" as defined by 242.70(a) -- and thus the contracting officer cannot include the 252.242-7005 clause that imposes mandatory payment withholds for business system "significant deficiencies." You imply the 252.242-7005 is self-deleting based on applicability. I say that inclusion in the contract violates the clause prescription.
  13. Bob thanks for this, once again. It's a very valuable resource that I will go to again and again
  14. Raytheon Company, Space & Airborne Systems, ASBCA Nos. 57801, 57803, 58068, decided 7 May 2015. See Discussion beginning on Page 14 -- "The CAS Board's Authority to Regulate" http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2015/57801, 57803, 58068 Raytheon Company, Space & Airborne Systems 5.7.15.pdf Hope this helps ….
×
×
  • Create New...