Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content Count

    2,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

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

38,304 profile views
  1. Okay. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that there are four elements to a CPPC arrangement. (KBR, ASBCA No. 58051, 2/12/2016) Your hypothetical example may be a valid hair-split but, then again, maybe not so much. I'm thinking it's going to be hard for the prime to argue that the subcontractor's entitlement did not increase directly with the increase in costs of performance. If I were advising the prime in your hypothetical, I would recommend caution.
  2. I'm sorry for being slow. You acknowledge there is a contractual prohibition, right? What is your correcting point?
  3. Should we mention that if the prime pays the supplier the same fixed fee percentage on its overrun as that which was originally negotiated, then we have a wonderful cost-plus-percentage-of-cost contract that is an expressly illegal contract type?
  4. I loved Vern's article and I would like to thank him for giving permission for WIFCON to publish it.
  5. Don't forget to reference FAR 31.202 and 31.203, and 31.205-38 (Selling Expenses). Plus there's the whole CAS 402 direct vs. indirect consistency thing, as embodied in 31.202(a): But other than those little nuances, sure.
  6. That's fine. But if the assertion is wildly wrong (as this particular one is) and the party making it is unable to cite to anything substantive that supports the assertion, then I would hope readers take that into account.
  7. In this forum, individuals making assertions such as this one are expected to support them with citations to regulations. I await the regulatory support for your assertion.
  8. -- Michael Ryan, CFA, Chief Investment Officer (Americas), UBS He continues:
  9. (52.232-7, emphasis added.) Edited to add: contractor breached and now wants to be made whole for its breach.
  10. This is a very dangerous line of reasoning not supported by (or in direct conflict with) applicable FAR and/or CAS regulations. Contractors that follow this line of reasoning should expect, as a minimum, questioned costs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a CAS 402 noncompliance thrown in for good measure. In extreme cases it could imperil the adequacy of the accounting system. I would strongly urge readers to ignore this reasoning.
  11. I agree FAR Part 15 implements statutory limits on fixed-fee amounts (in terms of percentages of estimated costs) for cost-plus-fixed-fee and other types of cost-reimbursement contracts awarded by the Government to prime contractors. Is it your position that the limitations in FAR Part 15 apply to CPFF contracts between a prime contractor and its subcontractors? If so, how would that work? Is there a contract clause that imposes those limitations?
  12. I'm utterly confused by the quoted sentence above. What in the world does a proposed fee rate have to do with disclosure cost or pricing data (certified or otherwise)? Can somebody explain to me what the concern is?
×
×
  • Create New...