Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by here_2_help

  1. Section 803(g)(3) of the 2018 NDAA states: (Emphasis added.) What does that mean in layperson's terms? Does that mean when the bill was signed into law, or when somebody issues implementing regulations, or what?
  2. What Does "Enactment" Mean?

    California’s five-year drought, which ended in 2016, had state officials scrambling to enact their own water restrictions. — Aryn Baker, TIME.com, "What It’s Like to Live Through Cape Town’s Massive Water Crisis," 8 Feb. 2018 Proposals placed on the ballot will need support from at least 60 percent of the voters to be enacted. — Sun-Sentinel.com, "Florida constitution panel comes to South Florida," 6 Feb. 2018
  3. FAR coverage is adequate if enforced, and discipline for intentional violation is consistently meted out. Otherwise, no. We need to revise Title 18.
  4. What Does "Enactment" Mean?

    I don't know, Vern. That's why I asked. You make it sound straightforward but lawyers are involved. When that happens, nothing is straightforward, in my experience. In particular I was concerned about "enacted into law" versus "enacted by regulation." I wondered if there might be some nuance I should be concerned about. Glad to see I have nothing to worry about.
  5. What Does "Enactment" Mean?

    MRD 18-PIC-001, dated 29 January 2018. FYI, DCAA doesn't post all its MRDs. The ones it chooses to post are released at a pace that I would consider to be very slow. PM me with your email address and I will send it to you.
  6. What Does "Enactment" Mean?

    Thanks all. DCAA recently issued audit guidance that assumed "date of enactment" was the date the bill was signed into law -- 12/17/2017. I was just looking for independent opinions regarding that assumption.
  7. Honestly, I think a number of people are fed up with seemingly infinite extensions of incumbency because of reasons (some legit, others not so much). This is what you get when you don't get contracts awarded timely. And I didn't see anybody here up in arms about measuring PALT. In my view, that's another message from our fiends (sic) in Congress that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that acquisition results can be improved, in terms of timely contract awards.
  8. The key issue, which both Vern and Joel have already noted, is that we do not know if the contractor must deliver hours by specified individual, or by defined labor category, or simply by anybody with the basic qualifications. The reason this matters is that individuals do get sick and take leave, but companies do not. In other words, the government may reasonably expect the contractor to have additional personnel on hand to fill in when people get sick or take leave, such that the required hours are still delivered. If individuals (e.g., key personnel) are being specified, you bid their actual expected availability at their actual expected pay rates; but if not then you bid the hours as specified and make sure you have the workforce available to deliver those hours. The latter approach includes blending of expected pay rates to calculate a composite average.
  9. Plan of Action for SB Goals

    Twice now I've developed first-time SB plans for contractors. Twice now the companies wanted the plans but they didn't want policies, procedures or anything that would show HOW the goals were going to be reached. They didn't want any changes to their org structures. They wanted the plans to show their prime, or their contracting officers, but that was all. Depressing.
  10. I'm having a hard time understanding why this "offer" would be entertained. The only thing I could come up with is that the agency feels that it has fallen short of its bid protest quota, and needs to create more reasons that disappointed bidders will file protests.
  11. Commercial Item Justification

    StePa, I agree with your approach. If it helps at all, there is a brand new DFARS rule (which obviously applies to government contracting officers, not prime buyers) that basically requires a prior CID to be accepted as valid, unless the CO can show why not.
  12. Commercial Item Justification

    Can you please clarify? Do you sell the same type of parts, without the minor mods that are "customarily available in the marketplace", to customers other than this prime? If so, can you demonstrate that? Can you demonstrate that the mods you make are, in fact, "customarily available in the marketplace"?
  13. Defense Small Business (Act)

    I like Pepe's Frog vision.
  14. 1. This is a legal question. I'm not a lawyer! But I suspect a lawyer would tell you that the company needs to disclose all facts. Right now, there is an intention to explore a future sale, but no deal. There does not seem to be even an identified buyer. Is the intent to explore a possible future sale a fact? Maybe. 2. What information could the company include at this point? Obviously, as the deal develops there will be more information; but right now? Not much. Just an intent to find a suitor and to explore a possible future sale if the price and terms are right. Seems pretty vague to me. 3 and 4. There are recent bid protests on this topic, having to do with Lockheed, SAIC, and Leidos. And those are just off the top of my head. You should research them. Hope this helps.
  15. January 2018 Volume 1 Report

    From my interactions with certain team members, this was always the intention. They told me they were going bold. (In candor I didn't take them all the seriously.) I suspect they needed to get their ducks aligned before going public with some of these recommendations.
  16. January 2018 Volume 1 Report

    Just finished skimming Section 2, Contract Compliance and Audit. It seems like the adults have (finally) shown up. I'm still skeptical that the recommendations will survive DCAA attacks and political maneuvering, but I like what I read.
  17. First-Tier Subcontract Reporting

    Two thoughts. 1. Better to get compliant now rather than worry about how things might look. 2. Compliance with 52.204-10 is checked during CPSRs. You may not qualify for a CPSR now, but you will one day. It would be smarter to have good habits in place before that day comes.
  18. I'm honestly confused by how one would transfer a commercial item at cost, unless the costs were compliant with FAR. At least, I've never seen it. The DCAA CAM position you cited to is what I have historically believed to be the case and it's what I was stating before you challenged me. However, I would never ever cite to a DCAA CAM position to support any argument I would make (I know better than that). If I can't find support for my position in the FAR or agency supplements then I am forced to admit I cannot support my position. All things considered, I think you articulated my (supportable) position much better than I did. Unsurprisingly.
  19. Busy today so I'll summarize. 1. There are three conditions that must be met in order to use the 31.205-26(e) exception: (1) It is the established practice of the transferring organization to price interorganizational transfers at other than cost for commercial work of the contractor or any division, subsidiary or affiliate of the contractor under a common control; and (2) The item being transferred qualifies for an exception under 15.403-1(b) and (3) The contracting officer has not determined the price to be unreasonable. All three conditions must be met. 2. If those circumstances apply, then 15.401 says "“Subcontract” (except as used in 15.407-2) also includes a transfer of commercial items between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor or a subcontractor (10 U.S.C. 2306a(h)(2) and 41 U.S.C. 3501(a)(3))." 3. My view is that normally intercompany work is a make, as per 15.407-2(b) but transferring commercial items activates the overriding definition quoted above, making the transfer a buy. I may have overreach in stating that the arms-length buy requires certified cost or pricing data so I withdraw that assertion.
  20. 1. The point is that when a contractor uses the exception within 31.305-26(e) and transfers at price, that converts the transaction from "make" to "buy". Thus you are subject to TINA and the rest of FAR Part 15 that implements TINA. If you have an exception to obtaining certified cost/price data, so be it. But if you can't find an exception then you have to comply. 2. Not exactly. When you take advantage of the exception within 31.205-26(e) then you must establish price reasonableness (though the way it's worded is odd). You have to convince a CO that your price is reasonable, using one of the techniques available for doing so. Simply asserting that your affiliated company is selling the items to your division at its established commercial price (or less) won't be sufficient (in my opinion). You have to have data. Perhaps historical price data will be good enough, but if your affiliated division offers unrecorded discounts (e.g., trial offers, loaners, etc.) then that won't do it. 3. Yes, TCI = Total Cost Input. Yes, now is the time to establish your transfer pricing and burdening practices for your IOT transactions.
  21. You are, quite literally, establishing that the FAR language is "arcane" and knowable only to a very few. I consider that to be a problem.
  22. 1. You are almost correct. The part where you need work is your statement that you won't need certified cost or pricing data. See FAR 15.401 definition of "subcontract". 2. You need to establish price reasonableness, so the normal method is to compete against third parties. How often? Depends on the volatility of the item's price in the marketplace. 3. Most accounting systems have a G/L account for intercompany transfers (IOTs) and a procedure for how they are costed. Also the Disclosure Statement wants to you disclose your IOT practices (if you are subject to full CAS). You can add profit (if you are bold) but expect your customer to balk. You can apply G&A if that is your practice. If you are on a TCI allocation base then DCAA expects the cost to be in the G&A base (See DCAA CAM Chapter 8 regarding CAS 410.)
  23. Vern, I'm saying that posts in this thread have made those assertions. You wrote an article making those assertions.
  24. The more I read this thread, the more depressed I get. We've had post after post, discussing the meaning of "firm, fixed-price" and whether the FAR means what it says, or if (instead) the FAR means whatever the contract drafter interprets it to mean. 1102's can't get it right. ASBCA Judges can't get it right. What hope does the average business person have? Words have to have meaning, and the meaning has to be comprehensible using plain language and non-legal dictionary definitions, under rules of interpretation adopted by the Federal Circuit. The parties entering into a contract need to have a common understanding and, historically, that understanding has been provided by definitions found in the FAR. This is part of the problem with the acquisition system. This is one of the reasons why companies will not sell to the DoD if they have other options. We cannot fix things and train people until and unless there is a common understanding of what terms mean. This thread beautifully illustrates just how hard a task that is.
  25. Sole Source Procurement

    Has upper management ever heard of the Changes clause?