Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content count

    1,752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by here_2_help

  1. At the risk of giving lotus more help that s/he was looking for .... there is no "but for" test for direct charge allocations. The "but for" test is used for identifying directly associated unallowable costs.
  2. Great point. Changing compensation practices by making sales commissions direct versus indirect (G&A) might well be viewed as a change in cost accounting practice.
  3. If you are going to charge as a direct cost, will the commissions be included in cost proposals? If so, what will the BOE be? Will the commissions be burdened? If so, how? Will you add profit to the burdened costs? Do you think the customer(s) will be okay paying for sales commissions + burden + profit?
  4. 5 Year IDIQ Contract

    Does the contract contain a Termination for Convenience clause? Has it been exercised?
  5. First on my list is FAR Part 30. I'm not saying eliminate CAS Administration, but the FAR Councils shouldn't be implementing CAS Board regulations. Just provide cross-references to the applicable CASB regulations, which are already located in FAR Part 99, for topics in FAR Part 30.
  6. Waiver of Amounts Due the Government

    Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the CO have to enforce the clauses in the contract? Are you saying that the CO has a duty to object to the inclusion of an official agency clause when the agency directs that clause to be incorporated into a contract, or that the CO must refuse to enforce the contract as agreed-to by the parties? If that's what your position is, I'm thinking it's a tad bid unrealistic. My position is that the contract must be enforced as written and agreed-to. Whether the clause is sound policy or not is above the CO's pay grade. Whether the agency obtained a FAR Deviation or not is above the CO's pay grade. So the beef, if any, is with the agency not the CO. What am I missing, please?
  7. Speaking for myself here, industry has learned through many years of futile effort that the FAR Councils, and especially the DAR Council, don't really give a darn about what industry thinks. Members are primarily focused on following the policy agenda established by their supervisors, and then doing what Congress tells them to do via implementing public laws in the regulations. (The latter is a distant second.) I would strongly suspect that any innovations that made sense to the people in the trenches, actually trying to accomplish projects, would be either (a) ignored or (b) killed in an ad hoc committee. I support my assertion by reference to the regulatory history of DOD's attempts to kill Performance-Based Payments or DOD's attempts to kill commercial pricing or the DAR Council's embarrassing response to recommendations contained in http://www.acq.osd.mil/fo/docs/Eliminating-Requirements-Imposed-on-Industry-Study-Report-2015.pdf
  8. Thinking about it this morning, there is a provision in CAS 420 that requires both IR&D and B&P expenses to be allocated to the segment that benefits from them, regardless of where the costs are incurred. So ... it's possible that what the OP was hearing was that B&P incurred on behalf of a foreign segment must be allocated to that segment in proportion to the benefit that the foreign segment expects to receive from the awarded contract. That's a lot of supposition and interpretation of the original question, but I wanted to be thorough in my response.
  9. MikeBP, The other posters are nicer and more diplomatic than I am. What you heard is nonsense. Somebody is confusing DOD restrictions on allowable IR&D (found in the DFARS) with fictitious USG restrictions on allowable B&P. Not the same thing at all.
  10. Not meaning to derail this very interesting thread, but I wanted to mention that when negotiating contracts with the UK MoD, the parties are supposed to discuss contingencies and, through a relatively complex probability analysis using Monte Carlo simulations, develop a probable contract cost for the contingency. That probable cost is added to the contract price as an allowable cost and, thereafter, it's the contractor's risk. In a FFP-like contract, the contractor has been compensated for that contingency whether or not it occurs, or regardless of to what extent it materializes. Obviously things are a bit different in a CP-like contract environment because funding is involved, but my understanding is that the contract profit/fee would not be adjusted for that particular contingency, regardless of actual cost incurred related to it. "Risk that can be estimated and modelled may be an Allowable Cost within the contract price if agreed by the [MoD]. Costs associated with compensating the contractor for such risk should be evidenced, be appropriately modelled, and only be recovered once." (Emphasis in original.)
  11. Reimburse how? As a direct contract cost? As an indirect (overhead) cost? How is the contractor charging the cost of the 5 shirts?
  12. Can we say that the Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) concept is similarly defunct? Please?
  13. I'm struggling to understand why a FFP contract with a PWS would require a detailed invoice breakout as suggested by tj. Either the contractor accomplishes the PWS objectives, or it does not. If it does accomplish the objectives, it should get paid whatever price the parties agreed upon--which appears to be a fixed price per month. If it does not, a cure notice should be sent. I'm struggling to understand why the quantity of hours the contractor incurred would matter.
  14. We agree. I don't know why you think my frustration was directed at you.
  15. This topic again ... Look, the term "subcontract" is inconsistently defined in the FAR. It just is. For example, FAR 15. 407-2(b) states that " an item or work effort to be produced or performed by the prime contractor or its affiliates, subsidiaries, or divisions" is a make item not a buy item. Thus, if you look only at that section, it's clear that an order between affiliated entities is different--and subject to different requirements--from an order between two unaffiliated entities operating on an arms-length basis. For example, the company submits one Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing data for all affiliated entities, whereas a subcontractor would submit its own CCCPD and might be subject to a "prime's" cost or price analysis. On the other hand, Vern has posted several FAR quotes that indicate the term "subcontract" includes less-than-arm's-length transactions. Thus: inconsistent. I assert that there is no correct answer; that the answer to the OP's question is context and circumstance dependent. I know companies that insist on a formal subcontract between sister divisions of the same company; and I know companies that use "Inter-divisional Work Authorizations" or something similar that are absolutely not formal subcontracts. The important requirement is that scope and budget be documented and that the company complies with 31.205-26(e). How that is accomplished is best left up to the individual company's management style.
  16. No-Cost Settlement and Unsatisfactory CPARS?

    Hey Vin, If you cut and pasted those comments from an email or other document from your attorney, then don't do that.
  17. Doesn't the government take title the instant you charge the cost of the vehicles to the contract? If so, then the government is insuring the vehicles from that moment forward.
  18. Buy American Act and Services

    I'm not sure it DOES apply. On the other hand, what kind of security requirements are in your contract?
  19. No-Cost Settlement and Unsatisfactory CPARS?

    Absolutely correct advice!
  20. No-Cost Settlement and Unsatisfactory CPARS?

    I don't think there is necessarily a relationship between a no-cost settlement and CPARS ratings. I agree that a no-cost settlement is much better than a T4D. If the government T4D'd you, do you think it would be justified? If so, the settlement sounds like a very nice alternative. If you strongly disagree with your CPARS ratings, you can request a contracting officer final decision and then appeal it. However, if you think a T4D might be justified, I would have a hard time seeing how you could, at the same time, think you should have a good CPARS rating.
  21. Don, thanks for the education. I was recalling the DIVAD case -- admittedly an outlier -- where the contractor had a FFP "best efforts" contract. That turned out to be a cost-type contract by another name. H2H
  22. Well, not really, Don. Best effort contracts permit the contractor to abandon work without delivery, once the funding has been spent, whereas completion contracts require actual completion. At least, that's the lesson I took away from the DIVAD case. Am I mistaken? That said, I'll grant you that a LOE contract would absolutely be subject to a strict period of performance cost limitation. Given that we are discussing "parts" I assumed this was for a product not a service. We'll see what the OP says. Another question for the OP: How did you deliver a product without all the necessary parts?
  23. What is the contract type? What is being acquired? Is this a "best effort" or "completion" task order?
  24. UCA - Required Contract Clauses

    The order references the BOA -- it states "Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) XXXX, this order is being awarded for ...." Is there really a BOA? Yes. Is this a DPAS rated order? Yes.
×