Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content Count

    2,158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

2 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

37,155 profile views
  1. Retread, I think you may be ignoring the timing difference between cost incurrence and receipt of the reimbursement. H2H
  2. Having been on the periphery of some West Coast shipbuilding/repair firms, and haven spoken with their finance/accounting personnel, I believe the quote above may be an understatement. I was told that the first change order is submitted about 5 minutes after the ship hits the dock, because no ship ever looks like its drawings.
  3. You're getting some of the semantics wrong, in my view. The submission of bid protest costs for reimbursement is not a "claim" (at least I don't think it is). The contractor is submitting its costs for reimbursement pursuant to the GAO recommendation. Would reimbursement of the costs "mitigate" the problem? Not really, since had the costs been allowable the contractor likely would have received profit on those dollars. But it's far better than nothing.
  4. Whenever you have unallowable indirect costs it reduces the allowable indirect cost rates, since pool/base = rate. Unallowable costs reduce the numerator (pool). Often a contractor will have legal expenses (e.g., defense of government claims) for which allowability cannot be determined until after the outcome of the case. In those circumstances, conservative contractors treat the costs as being unallowable and hope they get a resolution before audit/negotion of the final billing rates. (That's tough to do in these days of "6-12-6".) Otherwise, they pursue an advance agreement re: treatment of the costs. Hope this helps.
  5. My opinion: 1. The protest costs are unallowable. Because they are unallowable, they come out of the contractor's profits. When the government reimburses the costs, the check is recorded to "other income/expense" (or similar) to restore the contractor's lost profits. 2. The protest costs would still be unallowble. In this case, the contractor has traded restoration of its lost profits for an opportunity to receive an award and make future profits on that award. 3. I don't know of any case law on this question. It seems a bit silly to receive a GAO opinion recommending cost reimbursement and then fail to comply with the associated requirements. That said, I've seen sillier stuff so I probably shouldn't judge. Hope this helps.
  6. I get that you don't work in the Finance Department, but you have a phone, don't you? Most companies have a point of contact for DCAA-related issues. Sometimes they are called Government Accounting, or Compliance, or even Accounts Receivable. Find out who your company POC is and call that person. Ask what the hold up is. I bet you'll have a better idea of the go-forward strategy after you speak to somebody who has a clue about "those details" that have held up payment of your invoice for seven months.
  7. http://www.procurelinx.com/ Never used it but Mark knows his stuff.
  8. Will the subK use its performance on the prime contract as qualification or as relevant experience in its proposals for future work?
  9. From the facts provided, my opinion is that you, the prime, have been negligent in administering your property system. You didn't state that the property was contractor-acquired or government-furnished; however, your use of the term "the Form" makes me suspect it might be. If so, your contract clause 52.245-1 establishes your responsibilities, as prime contractor, in administering your property system. These responsibilities include managing and controlling government property held by your subcontractors. So, instead of emailing and pleading and threatening something like a T4D (which is a ridiculous threat after completion of performance and payment of invoices), I suggest you mobilize a team of functional experts and fly them to your subcontractor. They should then take a final inventory and help the subK complete "the Form." Charge the cost to your prime contract as non-billable. As a lesson learned, consider the following: 1. Don't pay the final invoice untill all certifications have been received, reviewed, and verified for accuracy. 2. You are responsibile for government property held by your subcontractors. If you will not or cannot live up to this responsibility, do not give your subcontractors any government property. 3. PMs have a lot to do. Managing and controlling government property is -- and should be -- very very far down their list of "to-do's". That's why most prime contractors have property people dedicated to sustaining their government property system. Hope this helps.
  10. I routinely define a T&M contract as a hybrid that contains both FFP ("T") and cost-reimbursable ("M") types. This is consistent with how FAR Part 30 treats T&M contract types. That said, FAR Part 16 clearly treats T&M contract types as being a unique type that is neither FFP nor Cost-Type. So your closeout section addresses two types but not T&M types. You need a B.3. Alternatively, you could apply B.1 to the "T" and B.2 to the "M" but that wouldn't make much sense, because I don't think you can have half a closed contract. Or ... and this is a wild thought ... you can close out the "T" using B.1 and then apply quick close-out procedures to the remaining "M" part of the contract.
  11. I'm happy with the points I made in the linked thread. I believe they are still accurate today. Adding some thoughts: 1. The DFARS language is in impermissible conflict with the FAR and the FAR PBP clause. It is in impermissible conflict with statute. 2. The angst about PBP events in excess of contractor incurred costs is based on a false premise. There is nothing impermissible about advance payments; see FAR Part 32, which permits them when circumstances dictate it's reasonable to do so.
  12. You can charge after the end of the PoP in the following circumstances: 1. Any completion-type contract where funding is not limited by year. For example -- FFP contracts with required deliveries. You can charge before the beginning of the PoP in the following circumstances: 1. In accordance with FAR 31.205-32.
  13. If you think the process is tedious, you should see it from the contractor's perspective ....
×
×
  • Create New...