Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content Count

    1,981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by here_2_help

  1. here_2_help

    Proposal Preparation Costs

    Gosh, have you checked how far behind DCAA and DCMA are with respect to finalizing billing rates? I'm not saying that's the problem, but it would not surprise me at all if the root cause was that rates were finalized 6 years later and the final, negotiated, rates caused an overrun.
  2. It seems fairly clear to me at the IFF is a "fee" paid to GSA for the privilege of selling stuff on a Schedule contract. You actually have to pay it to the GSA; it's calculated as a percentage of sales, isn't it? Accordingly, I think that when you are trying to calculate sales, the IFF should be excluded--i.e., subtracted from actual billings. I am not certain but I believe you pay the IFF on all billings, regardless of whether it was priced into every element. I hope this helps. Your question was a bit "vague" so I had to interpret.
  3. Vern, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from speculation regarding my motivation for declining to engage further in this discussion. Some might say that your last comment about my motives is in violation of Rule #1 of this Forum. Knowing you, I know it wasn't an intentional affront.
  4. As I said on my first post on this thread, I'm not making an argument and I'm not trying to convince (or even persuade) anybody. I'm sorry if that disappoints you (or anybody else). You and I have been down this road before and we are, I suspect, largely talking past each other. For example, I use the phrase "competitive advantage in the marketplace" and your response is that "if there is competition there is no requirement for cost or pricing data." Non sequitur. It's obvious that I'm not communicating well and I take responsibility for that.
  5. Actually, no. I do not have to explain it. As a hint, you might consider looking at the quote to which I was responding. I requoted it to show the context of my statement. If the context is not clear then there's nothing else I can do.
  6. It should be apparent that the ability to conduct effective, timely, TINA sweeps is a competitive advantage. That has always been the case, but the recent Assad memo should make it blindingly clear. Litigation avoidance as a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Think about it.
  7. Given that I spent more than a decade in the E&C industry, and then several years consulting to that industry, I'm pretty sure you are somewhat familiar with more than one of the companies I once worked for.
  8. 15.407-1 Defective certified cost or pricing data. ***** (b)(1) If, after award, certified cost or pricing data are found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or noncurrent as of the date of final agreement on price or an earlier date agreed upon by the parties given on the contractor's or subcontractor's Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, the Government is entitled to a price adjustment, including profit or fee, of any significant amount by which the price was increased because of the defective data. The first date is the date of price agreement; the second date is the effective date on the CCCPD. The dates do not have to be the same. For example, if the date of price agreement was 1 June but the contractor's final sweep was 28 May, then the parties could agree that the certification date is 28 May ... and any new cost or pricing data that arises between 28 May and 1 June is irrelevant to a determination that the contractor defectively priced. I don't know why this is hard. It doesn't have to be.
  9. Gosh fellows. I have been involved in several negotiations in my time, and we always knew when we were close to agreement. Further, we were frequently sweeping with subKs and ourselves during negotiations, seeking to see if we should update our pricing. It was always good news when we could deliver a cost savings during negotiations, through updated pricing. The customers always liked that. But please don't think I'm trying to persuade you of anything. You do you. By all means, proceed with your post-agreement sweeps, if that's what you feel you have to do. Take as long as you need. Finally, your comments don't address the difference between the effective date of the CCCPD and the date of price agreement. Two dates; not one.
  10. Vern and I have debated this issue (privately) in the past. I maintain that post-price agreement sweeps are essentially worthless because they don't mitigate defective pricing risk, which ends on the date of price agreement. Accordingly, I assert that a contractor must perform its final sweep just before the final price agreement is reached, and that date becomes the effective date of the Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. As to "incentive" -- would a Level 3 CAR on the Estimating System provide adequate incentive? I would think that it would.
  11. Prime contractors' costs to develop and administer small business reporting programs is not insignificant. And the costs associated with mistakes can be expensive as well. http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2017/59876 BAE Systems Southwest Shipyards Mayport LLC 7.13.17.pdf
  12. Jenkins83, You keep using the term "ODC" but I'm not sure you are using it correctly. If your question is whether the program office should have acquired hotspot services via an already existing BPA versus asking the contractor to provide, then the answer does NOT turn on what you or the contractor call the hotspot services. Totally separate issue. However, if you have concluded that it is appropriate to ask the contractor to provide hotspot services, then you may reasonably ask how the contractor should account for the cost of the services and bill them to the government. If that is the question before you, then what you are asking encompasses questions about the contractor's disclosed or established cost accounting practices. For example, you could reasonably ask how the contractor has accounted for such services in the past, when charged directly to a government contract. Does the contractor consistently treat hotspot services, when charged direct, as a "subcontract" or as a material item or as an "ODC"? Those are reasonable questions that the contractor should be able to easily answer. So which is it?
  13. If it doesn't fit "ODC" then where would you expect it to go?
  14. The prime contractor is responsible for execution risk on the contract. If the subcontractor doesn't perform the warranty work, who does the government hold accountable? Not the subcontractor ... When costs are incurred, they are recorded into allowable and unallowable categories. The contractor uses profit on allowable work to pay for its unallowable costs. When you deny the contractor profit on its costs then you are not allowing the contractor to cover its unallowable costs. I'm not in favor of such a situation.
  15. here_2_help

    COR Conflict of Interest

    A more on-point question is whether the employee left in good circumstances and whether they might now harbor a grudge or animus against their former employer.
  16. ARF, If the subcontractor is not a related/affiliated entity to the prime contractor, then there is no "profit on profit" in the situation you describe. The price charged by the subcontractor becomes the prime's costs, on which it is allowed to make a profit (unless the contract dictates otherwise).
  17. here_2_help

    Eliminate FAR 52.217-9?

    Earlier is better, especially if the customer knows the funds are (or will be) available. Why play coy? Just let the contractor know so that the workforce can be notified. Vern listed other considerations.
  18. here_2_help

    G&A not allowed on Travel

    Finally found time to access my Manhattan Project library to accurately quote one of my favorite government audit stories. From the book "Now It Can Be Told," by General Leslie Groves:
  19. here_2_help

    Eliminate FAR 52.217-9?

    FrankJon, When a contract has options, the contractor is almost always praying that those options will be exercised. Same thing for a contract extension. Please, proceed. (A rare exception would be if the contract was in a loss position and extending it would exacerbate the loss.) From my perspective, providing advance notice helps the contractor retain staff. Otherwise, as the end of the PoP nears, we are polishing resumes and going on interviews and trying to keep the paychecks flowing on another contract. To your point, there's not a lot of value to be had other than that, because why wouldn't the contractor keep the gravy train chugging along? But please do consider that retention is a real concern and the government can help the contractor by providing advance notice that there is no reason for the staff to start looking for new jobs.
  20. here_2_help

    G&A not allowed on Travel

    Yes it will. Schedule H will show the full amount of G&A being allocated to the contract and it will show the amount claimed as allowable contract-absorbed G&A being less than the full amount allocated. The difference will be the amount of G&A allocated to travel, because the contract made those allocated costs unallowable. As Vern correctly noted, the G&A allocated to travel is "expressly unallowable" by contract terms.
  21. here_2_help

    G&A not allowed on Travel

    Joel, if you could find that case I would be very interested, because that conclusion would surprise me. In my view, adding an indirect burden does not create a CPPC situation. It simply adds more costs. Carl, I think the issue here is that the agency is saying that G&A allocated to travel costs is unallowable, not that it is unallocable.
  22. here_2_help

    G&A not allowed on Travel

    Sorry I do not -- maybe ask Jim Nagle? From my (biased) point of view, it's part of a long-standing attempt to cut contractor costs, piece by piece. But I don't know the origins of that movement.
  23. here_2_help

    G&A not allowed on Travel

    It's a common thing, not so much with regard to contracts with Federal agencies, but more with state/local government contracts. And -- to be clear -- the G&A expense must be allocated to all costs in the input base. The G&A allocated to travel cost is not billable; it is unallowable by the terms of the contract. Contractors who don't want to accept those contract terms should not bid on the work. Or -- and this is a piece of advice I normally charge for -- they could consider changing their G&A expense pool allocation base.
  24. here_2_help

    Bonus Credit Card Points

    Retreadfed, I feel as if I've sufficiently answered your question. In your hypothetical, the contractor is NOT REQUIRED to use the accumulated points to purchase a discounted airfare. It can choose to pass on the allocable portion of the value of the accumulated points in one of several different ways. THE CONTRACTOR HAS DISCRETION REGARDING THE METHODOLOGY IT CHOOSES. If I'm still unclear on my position, please forgive me. I cannot do any better.
  25. here_2_help

    Bonus Credit Card Points

    52.216-7 requires that the government share in the allocable portion of any rebate, income, or credit related to a direct or indirect cost that it originally paid. Thus, in your hypothetical the government has to share in any discounted fare(s) for which the points are used to achieve the discount. HOW to do that is, generally, left to the contractor's discretion (subject to audit). If the contractor wants to purchase a discounted fare and let the government share in the discount by charging the discounted fare to a current cost-type contract, that would generally be acceptable. If what you're driving at is a potential different mix of contracts/customers between when incurred/earned and when taken (a la Hercules tax refund) then I would say we're talking about $250.00. Nobody cares. If we are talking about $250,000, then that nuance becomes more valid.
×