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

36,820 profile views
  1. Yeah, when the ceilings = the proposed rates then somebody is taking a shortcut to performing a solid cost realism analysis. If the proposed rates = contract ceiling rates, then make sure to bid rates that give you plenty of room on top. (Disclose your actual rates, of course. But propose higher rates.)
  2. So it's not a cost-reimbursable contract then? Clause 52.216-7 will not be included? I mean, if the rates I propose become fixed for the life of the contract then, to that extent, the contract is fixed-price. Reimbursable labor plus a fixed multiplier is common in commercial contracts (e.g., refinery maintenance) but I've never seen it in the government contracting world. How interesting! I wonder if the CO has obtained a deviation from FAR to create this contract type?
  3. 1. No, except in extenuating circumstances. For example, if a contract was Terminated for Convenience or there was a Stop Work order that affected the ability to control indirect rates. 2. It controls the situation. Failure to comply with the clause's requirements means the customer is not obligated to fund your overrun. 3. Same answer as No. 1.
  4. Completely agree. Further, provisional billing rates are not the optimum method for preparing Estimates-at-Completion, unless the provisional billing rates are equal to the actual (or target) cost rates for the periods of performance. Said another way: using PBRs to manage Limitation of Funds clause compliance is not the recommended practice.
  5. I would put N/A because you don't want to be accused of misleading reviewers into thinking you actually filed a CASB DS-1. In the proposal narrative, you can explain that you filed a QMAC and it was reviewed and found to be adequate by CAAS.
  6. Yeah: "I'm from Headquarters. I'm here to help." "I'm so glad you're here!" Two lies.
  7. I'm not going to tell you whether or not FICA taxes are applied to uplifts. That's a job for an employment tax lawyer. If you are not getting your position from an employment tax lawyer, you are likely getting a wrong position. However, I am comfortable discussing whether overhead, G&A, and/or Profit should be applied to your uplifts. The answer is: it depends. It depends on (1) what your allocation base used for overhead is; (2) what your G&A expense allocation base is; and (3) whether or not you want to propose profit on the uplifts. Your company needs to decide what its answers are and then follow them consistently. There is no "right" answer. There is only what your company elects to do. For example, treating uplifts as a component of direct labor dollars may reduce your overhead and G&A expense rates (assuming they are allocated on direct labor dollars). On the other hand, if you don't allocate G&A expense to ODCs, then treating uplifts as if they are ODCs may make your proposed costs lower than they otherwise would be. If you have multiple contracts in hand, then the answer(s) to the questions facing this proposal may impact revenue/earnings from those contracts, and needs to be considered. For example, if you lower your G&A expense rate by adding uplifts into the G&A allocation base, then your FFP contracts are going to get cheaper and you will earn extra margin on them. Figuring out the right strategic answer for your company is not a quick and dirty discussion. It's a shame your company had to wait until it was preparing its cost estimate to address the issue.
  8. Sounds like a reasonable approach. In another related anecdote, receipts related to classified meetings are interesting. In my experience, the traveller takes an exacto knife and literally excises any information related to location from the original receipt before attaching it to the expense report. The expense report does not report a location of the meeting. The business purpose of the meeting is invariably "classified meeting." Fortunately, classified customers tend to have classified auditors, as well. They tend to understand national security concerns.
  9. here_2_help

    Progress Payment - Delivery Delinqiuency

    Proving once again that progress payments have no guaranteed correlation to making progress. Instead, they are correlated to the contractor's ability to spend money.
  10. 1. What does history tell you? When the prime wins, do you get the promised work, or not? 2. Sounds like your company is in a weak competitive position. If the primes needed you, you'd get a better deal.
  11. Yes, those two principles are still valid. You were correct to ressurect them.
  12. ji20874. That memo is not particularly helpful to anybody. I post this not to try to make you feel bad, but so that others will know. First, the memo is now 15 years old. It doesn't describe current compensation practices--if it ever did. Second, from Day 1 there was controversy about that memo; the sample size was very small; it was alleged at the time that it was not a representative sample of contractors. Consequently, it was definitely questionable as to whether DCAA could extrapolate from its sample to all contractors being audited. If DCAA and the CO are relying on that memo today as the basis for questioning costs, it's going to be fairly easy to rebut the government's position. As a couple of recent legal decisions have shown that when a cost is questioned on the basis of reasonableness, there must be a real issue associated with a specific cost. If a cost is simply questioned without specificity, and the CO thinks the burden is now solely on the contractor, that's an oversimplification of the situation.
  13. here_2_help

    percentage commission for sales and BD

    Suggest you distinguish domestic and international sales. International sales seem to always take much longer, since you are negotiating with two government bureaucracies not just one. Consequently, international sales and BD should generate higher commissions.
  14. Another point -- 16.301-3(4) talks about government surveillance during performance. I would suggest that sprice11 gently ask where that surveillance was, and why no government official ever questioned uplifts in excess of DSSR limits during performance, or during invoice reviews.
  15. Okay, isn't this basically the same issue as asked in another thread? Now I GET that you weren't asking about the same issue. You asked specifically about the contracting officer's documentation of negotiations. Different vector; same issue. In the other thread I posted an ASBCA opinion that might be relevant to your issue, or perhaps not. If I were in your situation (and I am, frequently) I would be bringing that ASBCA opinion to the attention of the KO and not-so-subtly suggesting that they go talk to Legal about the likelihood of success when you appeal the COFD. I would be talking about summary judgment, which is typically a cheaper form of litigation. I would be working hard to make the KO realize that the DCAA position was not going to be well regarded by the courts. Forget the PNM or Negotiation Memo. All that stuff will be discoverable when the appeal is filed. And all those comments you wish you had recorded? You'll get a chance to recite them in your deposition. And the other folks will get a chance to defend their remarks in their deposition, while under oath. Those are the points I would be making to your KO in trying to resolve this issue now.