Jump to content

here_2_help

Members
  • Posts

    3,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by here_2_help

  1. Retreadfed, I believe it was implied that lacylu was with a non-DoD agency (see the 2/27 post). Why an ACO -- ANY ACO -- would need auditors to compare two Disclosure Statements is, quite frankly, a mystery to me. You compare one to the other and identify any differences. lacylu, I'm not going to answer your question. I feel it just would raise more questions than I would feel comfortable answering in this forum. You have governmental resources and I suggest you use them instead of some internet poster who won't even post under his/her real name. I feel frustrated (on your behalf) that you can't get clear answers to your questions in a reasonable timeframe, but I also suspect you may not be asking the right questions using the correct language to get what you want. People want to make CAS administration hard. It can be -- especially down in the weeds trying to interpret deliberately obtuse language mostly written more than 40 years ago in a completely different acquisition environment. But the basics are quite straightforward and need not be hard. The contractor must use the cost accounting practices it used to prepare its winning offer, or give the government advance notice of any changes and show the pluses and minuses of how contract costs will be impacted. The Disclosure Statement is the map that shows exactly what changed. It's a government form and government folks should (in my estimation) be able to follow it. It's not particularly hard, though it does address certain accounting topics. But there are no numbers involved, just words. H2H
  2. lacylu, You didn't answer Retreadfed's pointed and very relevant question. The contractor may assert that no changes have taken place, but it is the ACO's responsibility to make that determination on behalf of the government. Moreover, it does *not* take "a few months" to determine whether or not a change in cost accounting practice has taken place; the contractor is required by the CAS regulations to notify the ACO 60 days before any such changes take effect. (Is it possible that you are confusing the advance notification with the submission of cost impact analyses, which are not the same thing?) A comparison of the two Disclosure Statements -- the pre- and the post-change versions -- identifies the exact changes that have taken place, or confirms that no changes have taken place. Finally, the contractor is required to prepare its cost estimates using the same cost accounting practices it will use for accumulating costs during performance. That may be the rationale for using "the new rates" in all future change proposals ... but please be advised that the government does not have to accept those new rates if they result from changes to cost accounting practice and the contractor failed to properly notify the government of those changes as CAS requires. (The government may not be required to accept the new rates for other reasons, but the one I mentioned seems most applicable to your situation.) Hope this helps.
  3. Zack, If a contract mod is not available, I've had luck (sometimes) in arguing the nature of the contract -- i.e., completion versus best efforts. I have had success from arguing that the requirement to complete performance supersedes the contract PoP. But in all cases, getting the mod was the most effective course of action. H2H
  4. Probably a wise decision on a public forum, or on Agency premises.
  5. Vern, I'll stand by my entry (which is limited to one attempt by the rules of the game). I don't necessarily think the policy is stupid; most companies prohibit consumption of alcohol and gambling (including participation in fantasy sports leagues as well as the March madness pools) while on company premises. I'm fine with a Government agency doing the same thing. The banning of "fraternization" or "socialization" seems silly; or, at least, unenforceable in almost any situation I can envision. If "fraternization" means "sexual intercourse (or variations thereof)" then that's probably a bit more enforceable ... but only a bit, human nature being what it is. However, if "socialization" is the term to be used, then I think it is entirely unenforceable. I'm philosophically opposed to the imposition of unenforceable contract terms, just as I counsel against issuing orders that cannot (or will not) be obeyed. H2H
  6. Oh Vern, sometimes you can be such a curmudgeon ... Original: "Under no circumstances shall the Contractor consume alcohol, gamble or fraternize with Agency employees while on site." My suggestion: "While on Agency premises, contractor employees will comply with Agency personnel conduct standards as described in the __ Policy. Such standards include prohibitions on alcohol consumption, gambling, and fraternization (as that term is defined by the Policy)." H2H
  7. So "fraternize" has become "socialize"? Huh. Try enforcing that prohibition. "Your employee was socializing with our Agency employee while on our premises!" ===== "No he didn't. That was an official exchange of information directly relevant to the job at hand. Prove otherwise or withdraw your baseless allegation." ===== "Well, yes. But that's because she was invited to the birthday party by your Agency employees. You induced her to violate the contract. See you in court." ===== "No he didn't. He attended a Monday morning staff meeting at which he was asked about his weekend. Fearing that silence would be construed adversely, he responded to the official inquiry." ===== "If you characterize attending the official retirement party as 'socializing' then we admit it happened. But our employee paid for his own food and beverages (for which we have not billed the Agency), and the employee charged his time to indirect "marketing" and not to the contract. Please explain how the Agency suffered any damage. And by the way, our employee was representing our company in an official capacity and made a speech, for which he received an ovation. Are you sure you want to make a big deal about this?" ===== I could go on. This is fun. H2H
  8. From my experience.... 1. Yes 2. Auditors would not necessarily cite to a clause. They would just say "outside period of performance." 3. Maybe. Probably. 4. Yes Hope this helps
  9. What does "fraternize" mean? If fraternization is prohibited on-site, it is okay off-site? Can I fraternize with an Agency employee at my apartment during the lunch hour? Does the prohibition apply only to Agency employees, or to anybody? For example, if I am a contractor and I fraternize with my significant other (who is not an Agency employee) in the janitorial closet on Agency premises, is that okay? Just wondering.
  10. There has been some lamenting about bad writing recently on these message boards recently. Should be rewritten for clarity as "Recent postings on this forum have advanced the notion that writing quality can and should be improved."
  11. REA'n Maker, That's not the rule for determining whether FCCOM is an allowable cost, or not. H2H
  12. REA'n Maker, On a cost-type contract, the existence (or lack of) a CLIN does not determine whether or not a cost is a direct contract cost. See FAR definition of direct cost at 2.101, which states that a direct cost is "any cost that is identified specifically with a particular final cost objective." (Emphasis added.) H2H
  13. Nobody I know teaches that stuff. The closest I can think of is a NCMA National Educational Seminar from several years ago that addressed "risk management of complex government projects" -- but that's not what you are looking for. You are looking for a course that teaches government folks how to evaluate performance risk when looking at bids. If you want that course I'm fairly sure (but not positive, of course) that it would have to be developed to meet your needs. Why not reach out to Fed Pubs or Public Contracting Institute and see what they'd charge to develop that course? H2H
  14. CHILINVLN, Do you see how your question has changed since your original post? In your original post, you asked "is an employer required to payout Paid Time Off (PTO)?" In your last post you said "If you have accrued vacation days that you haven't yet used when you quit or are fired, you may be entitled to be paid for that time...." Can you see there is a difference between PTO and vacation -- that there may well be a fundamental legal difference between those two terms? Can you see that an employee's rights with respect to PTO may be different than an employee's rights with respect to pure vacation? So which one is it? Because it matters. A lot. H2H
  15. Vern, The point of my post is that *nothing* is certain. Perhaps "optional" was a poor word choice -- though I was simply mimicking the word choice used by the original poster. What is certain is that whether or not an employee has a non-forfeitable right to some or all of accumulated PTO is *variable* based on a number of factors. The best indication of any employee's right to receive accumulated PTO upon separation from the company is the company's HR policy. That policy should establish what rights an employee has to the accumulated PTO, if any. H2H
  16. Of course the PTO payout is optional. Some companies have "use it or lose it" and other companies combine vacation with sick leave--and there is an entitlement to earned vacation but not to unused sick leave. Each company is different and, as JRT132 noted, each state has different requirements. H2H
  17. CHILINVLN, The answer will be found in the employer's HR policy manual.
  18. Good luck, lacylu. I believe DCAA will be happy to answer your questions. The most recent audit agency interpretation of the NDAA audit prohibition is that it only prohibits actual audits, and even then audits of mixed (DoD and non-DoD) contracts are not prohibited. Since your question is not an audit, I believe they will be willing and able to respond. H2H
  19. "the company change its cost accounting practices due to a new division." Well ... again, I don't know what you are describing. Just adding a new division doesn't mean that cost accounting practices have changed. "Cost accounting practice" is a term of art with a very specific meaning, and there are some key court cases that stand for the proposition that a reorganization is not a change in cost accounting practice (see Perry v. Martin Marietta Corp, 47 F.3d. 1134). Creation of new labor categories and skill mixes are not necessarily indicative of changes in cost accounting practice -- but they might be. Maybe one or more cost accounting practices did change -- but which ones? Did the contractor submit a revised Disclosure Statement? If so, there should be an accompanying matrix that identifies all changes. Where were the changes? What -- specifically -- changed? I'm sensing you are a bit overwhelmed here (forgive me if I'm wrong about that). Have you gotten DCAA involved? What do the auditors say? H2H
  20. lacylu, The term "company restructure" is ambiguous. Can you tell us what is actually happening? Is a restructure the same as a "reorganization" or does it mean something else? You say that the contract's CAS clause requires the company to inform you 60 days prior to its restructure. If the restructure resulted in changes to cost accounting practice (as that term is defined by the CAS regulations), then you have a good point. But if there were no changes to cost accounting practice, then there is no requirement to make a prior notification. You say that the limitation of funds clause is being used to reject the contractor's cost increases that stem from the reorganization. That seems to be a valid approach, except at some point the contractor will stop work, right? You say that the contractor's new labor categories have much higher rates and ask whether that conflicts with allocability requirements. Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. The labor categories are fixed hourly rates, correct? The relate to the T&M portion of your contract, I presume. If so, cost increases experienced by the contractor (for whatever reason) would seem to be irrelevant to the billing rates. To sum up, I'm pretty confused about what your are asking about. If the contractor did a reorg with no changes to cost accounting practice, then you may not have a lot of support for your positions. But if the contractor did make changes to cost accounting practice, then not only will you have a lot of support, but the contractor is required to submit a cost impact analysis to show the impacts to all CAS-covered contracts. Hope this helps
  21. Okay -- I will call them on Monday. That's a phone call, right? The kind of thing folks used to do back in the pre-internet days?
  22. I don't know if anything has changed for anybody else, but I STILL cannot access the ASBCA website. Saying that the security for the .MIL addresses is impacting access doesn't seem correct, because the DCAA website -- www.DCAA.MIL -- is available. At this point, my work is actually being negatively impacted by the lack of access, because I want to research some decisions. I would like to write a letter of complaint but, quite honestly, I don't know to whom to address my complaint. Does anybody have any suggestions? Thanks for the help!
  23. Navy, You can't rely solely on the clauses or lack of clauses to determine CAS coverage. At a minimum, you also need to review the Section K Reps & Certs that were submitted by the contractor, to review the CAS statements (or elections) made therein. H2H
  24. No. That is not cross-charging as you (and the IG) defined it in your post. However, it may indicate a defectively priced proposal--assuming that the contractor knew that all three contracts would be awarded and that the employee did not intend to work overtime in order to staff each contract as proposed. But those are some big assumptions. All Company ABC would have to say is that the employee works overtime in order to meet the needs of each contract. Hope this helps
×
×
  • Create New...