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

38,762 profile views
  1. I would recommend that CHILINVLN consider reading this recent decision at the Federal Circuit. It involves a failure to provide GFP (rather than a delay in providing GFP) but it discusses the CO's role. Hope this helps.
  2. Twenty years ago, I really thought the Courts had recognized that the FAR did not prescribe the universe of possible transactions between those acquiring goods/services and those providing them. Unfortunately my optimism was short-lived, as the Federal Circuit reversed. It would have been interesting to see how the rule-makers dealt with the situation, had the ASBCA decision been affirmed.
  3. Or, perhaps, the contract could be awarded as a cost-reimbursement type, in which case labor costs, as well as indirect burden costs, would automatically true-up.
  4. The only way this works is if the "employee" is an independent contractor (1099-type) and is hired to perform disparate functions/activities on the different cost objectives you list. Otherwise, I would suspect there is going to be an auditor concern with the integrity of the contractor's compensation system. If the employee is salaried and any of the contracts are cost-type, then it would be an auditor concern on steroids. A better way--and a more common way--is to pay the employee $XX/hour on all hours recorded to all cost objects and then establish a bonus plan that pays $XXX based on
  5. My point was (as I suspect you know) that the contract type is not as relevant to the application of the cost principles as whether cost analysis is performed. The cost principles apply whenever the government performs cost analysis on the contractor's proposal. Your second sentence is true but not germane because that was not the point you were making in your previous post.
  6. Did the OP state whether the contract was subject to cost analysis? If so, I must have missed that. Perhaps it was competed and price reasonableness was determined in relation to other offerors' prices.
  7. 31.205-7 discusses contingencies. Does FAR Part 31 apply to this solicitation and award? We don't know. But if it does, then contingencies ... (Emphasis added.) Thus, if the contractor can support its "padding" through reference to historical costs or to known/foreseeable risks (the effects of which can be quantified), then the "padding" is perfectly fine. Otherwise, not so much.
  8. As most here know, I work at a contractor, not in the government. My interaction with contracting officers, contracting specialists, cost monitors, and government contract auditors is from the receiving end; I may be biased. I see a lot of hard-working people struggling to do the right thing within a broken acquisition system. There are multiple levels of review, and it seems the higher up one goes, the less knowledgeable the reviewer is. Why even have reviews/approvals if the people don't know what they are reviewing? Anyway ... I also see experienced, trained, people who don't know
  9. In my experience the most efficient solution is to have the contractor fix it rather than argue with DFAS (or whomever) regarding the accuracy of the reconciliation to the point where they will admit that a mistake was made.
  10. Gotta tell you this happens a lot. Good contractors perform periodic reconciliations to MOCAS or whatever contract payment system is being used. This issue should have been caught by the contractor, but perhaps they were waiting until the final contract closeout reconciliation -- which is not a good business practice. In fact, it may be an indication that the auditors should pay the contractor a visit and evaluate billing controls and related practices. Good KOs perform similar reconciliations as well (good on you Freyr). Another approach you may want to consider is to partner w
  11. Thank you all for the confirmation.
  12. My impression is that facilities contracts are no longer a separate contract type. (I'm using the phrase "contract type" in the sense of what the government is acquiring: supplies, services, construction, R&D.) I base this impression on the elimination of FAR 31.106 from the FAR. However, that's just one data point and thus I am looking for some confirmation that facilities contracts, as a separate type of contract no longer exists in the regulations. Does anybody still deal with facilities contracts? If so, what part of the FAR is guiding you?
  13. There should be no conflicts because 52.216-7 addresses the cost allowability and true-up requirements associated with any indirect cost rates applied to materials ("M") whereas 52.232-7 covers all the other payment areas.
  14. A contractor is not required to use DCAA's "ICE" Model to submit its annual proposal to establish final billing rates (as required by 52.216-7). It may use its own spreadsheet if that makes sense, so long as the spreadsheet is similar to what DCAA is looking for and contains the required Schedules. That said, DCAA has a new "contractor submission portal" these days. I haven't used it and I don't know how it will handle contractor-unique submissions. Yes, a GAGAS-compliant audit by an independent qualified CPA, as documented via SF 1408, would be sufficient to determine for the contractor'
  15. I'm more than a bit hesitant to weigh-in here, mostly because Vern doesn't need any white knights to come to his rescue. That said .... Contractors buy laptops all the time. Prices for new laptops range from $500 up to maybe $3,000 for top-end computers. I don't know how much the government is paying for its bulk purchases of laptops from Dell or whomever, but I would be shocked if the price for a new laptop were outside that corridor. No contractor I know, small business or not, would hesitate a moment to write a check to cover the loss of a government-provided laptop. Most contractors I
  • Create New...