here_2_help

CAS is applied to individual contracts not a program. You say you have multiple contracts of various types, so obviously the exemption you cited cannot apply to all of the contracts. Further, you did not specify what your company certified on the 52.230-1 certification which was required in Section K of your proposal submission. Did you claim exemption and, if so, upon what basis?

Ha! You are not the first person to go down this path ... http://www.apogeeconsulting.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1027:saboteurs-of-innovation&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=55 http://www.apogeeconsulting.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=598:gao-says-dcma-has-been-mismanaged-is-overly-reliant-on-dcaa&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=55

Seems to me that DoDOIG believes that a depot can be a subcontractor. See DODIG-2016-045, which says (in pertinent part)-- There are two primary types of PPP arrangements: a direct sales agreement (DSA) and a workshare arrangement (WSA). Under a DSA, a depot maintenance activity and a contractor enter into a contractual relationship for depot maintenance repair services. The contractor pays the depot maintenance activity for the repair services that are provided to the contractor for DoD-related work based on the depot labor hourly rate. The contractor can earn a profit on the work performed by the depot maintenance activity. Under a WSA, the contractor and the depot maintenance activity work as partners sharing the DoD-related repair work. Funding is not exchanged between the partners and the contractor does not earn a profit on the work performed by the depot maintenance activity.

Vern, I disagree with your disagreement with my advice. You seem to want Surapak to go away and think about things. That's great advice for personal development. In the long run it's the right advice for anybody, from contractor to contracting officer, who wants to advance in this bizarro world we call "government contracting." But right now, it's the wrong advice for Surapak. Surapak is apparently a contractor seeking to submit a proposal to a government customer. He needs help, as evidenced by his post here. He needs help now because the RFP clock is ticking. If my experience is anything to go on, his company can't afford for him to take time for personal development in order to come to a conclusion--one that may or may not be correct--about how to respond to the RFP requirements. His company needs solid answers and a path forward, and they need it now. If Surapak cannot provide solid answers and a path forward, then the company needs to obtain them from another source; typically that's a consultant. The price for guessing about what the RFP instructions require, or taking too long to reach a valid conclusion, may well be the loss of the opportunity. That's where I'm coming from, at any rate. By the way, I recently landed a new consulting client, who waited until his company's incurred cost audit was just about complete before engaging me to help him understand the differences between what the IRS allows for tax deduction purposes and what FAR Part 31 allows for cost-reimbursement purposes. Despite performing on a cost-reimbursement subcontract for several years, he had never been aware of the distinctions. I really wish he had engaged me about 3 years ago! I admit that situation may be coloring my response to Surapak.

Joel, that's the point of my post. You may be right; you may be wrong. Nobody knows. This is a classic opportunity for Surapak and his company to hire somebody as a consultant, somebody who can review the solicitation and ask intelligent questions about how the company has calculated its markup for past projects, and then advise the company how to tailor its practices to comply with the current requirements (if tailoring is even necessary). Instead of spending a couple thousand bucks on somebody who can give concrete advice within the time constraints of the solicitation, Surapak has chosen to come here in hopes of getting the same advice for free. That's not a bad approach so long as there is engagement and clarifying questions are answered. The problem is that Surapak is not engaging and clarifying questions are not being answered, so the time between question and advice is stretching out ... at exactly the wrong time because the company needs advice now in order to prepare its cost proposal.

Surapak, Your question cannot be answered because we don't know how you apply overhead. Some contractors apply overhead to labor only, others have different methods. We don't know if you normally and consistently apply overhead to your subcontractor's costs. Hope this helps.

I often have to draft policy position papers, procedures, and instructions. Essentially there are two ways to do it: (1) create a working group or committee and start outlining and writing in a giant, iterative, brainstorming session--and then submit the end product for review; or (2) prepare an initial draft on my own and then submit to a working group or committee to receive feedback, questions, suggested edits, etc--and then revise on my own and resubmit until the end product is mutually acceptable. The second method is always much faster and results in a better end product.

I was having a fun conversation with a co-worker about the newly issued proposed DFARS revisions on technical data rights -- all 100+ pages of it. We were discussing the following definition: "Form, fit, and function data means technical data or computer software that describes the required overall physical, logical, configuration, mating, attachment, interface, functional, and performance characteristics (along with the qualification requirements, if applicable) of an item or process to the extent necessary to permit identification of physically or functionally equivalent items or processes. The term does not include computer software source code, or detailed manufacturing or process data." Our first question was about the phrase "computer software" which appears multiple times in the proposed rule. Is there another type of software other than computer software? Our second question was about the application of the phrase "form, fit, and function" to software. The rule-makers obviously went to great lengths to define what they think they mean, but what do they mean? "FFaD data means technical data or ... software that describes the required overall physical ... characteristics ... of an item or process ..." What does that mean? Do we really have software that actually describes the required overall physical characteristics of an item or process? If so, why? Maybe it's our ignorance but we didn't get it.

I know that every specialty has its own jargon. But sometimes it helps to be reminded how terms are commonly used outside of one's narrow specialty. "Information security, sometimes shortened to InfoSec, is the practice of defending information from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, perusal, inspection, recording or destruction. It is a general term that can be used regardless of the form the data may take (e.g. electronic, physical)." - Wikipedia "Safeguard" has many definitions. 15 U.S.C. Section 6801, commonly called "The Safeguards Rule," requires financial institutions to develop a written information security plan that describes how the company is prepared for, and plans to continue to protect clients’ nonpublic personal information. -- Wikipedia Based on common language definitions, InfoSec is the general term and Safeguard is the more narrow term. My point is, when rule-makers draft rules that twist commonly accepted meanings, or create subtle distinctions through use of jargon that even well-read practitioners have trouble discerning, then nobody should be surprised when contractors cannot figure out what is required and are noncompliant. Yes, we have to turn square corners but if we can't figure out where the corners are, it's difficult to make the turn.

Intentionally not commenting on Question1, just Question 2. I'm looking at this from the contractor's side. To me, there is no longer any uncompensated overtime because the hourly rates have been adjusted downward in the FPRA to account for the uncompensated overtime. Thus, there is no longer a competitive advantage accruing to the contractor that proposes uncompensated overtime. I wouldn't expect any further adjustments. Hope this helps.

Desparado, Understood. You are correct. However, I would suggest that firms that don't already have qualified staff in-house may not be the right firms. I get this shuts out SBs but if you want quality audits you need quality people. The firm's credentials are almost irrelevant. This is based on my 10 years in the ranks of those firms.

I'm not claiming to know better than j_dude77's team, because I'm just a random voice on the internet. That being said, I would have to think that there would be easier ways of determining a qualified firm--and of determining whether that firm knew the difference between the two types of audits -- than evaluating audit reports. Also: resumes, resumes, resumes. Perhaps unlike building planes or tanks, it's the people, not the firm. H2H

I seem to have a vague memory that the original CAS regulations and standards (the parts from 1970 - 1980) were to be found in Title 4 of the CFR, not Title 48. But perhaps that's just memory playing tricks.

"It looks like the government is planning to restructure a priced option on a task order that may or may not have been competitively awarded. Is that the same as restructuring a contract level priced option? I don't know." I don't know either and I hope SubK comes back to give us the necessary information to help out.

SubK You used the phrase "optional surge" which suggests the surge was a pre-priced option. Your post then suggests the CO did not exercise the option as priced. Do I have that right? If so, I recommend you research "exercise of options" rather than FFP LOE contract type. You may have some interesting results to consider. Hope this helps.

Popping in here to say that I've done my research and talked to as many people as I could. Some of the info has been conflicting -- e.g., one group is sure DCAA will be performing the audits but another group is just as sure that the UK MOD auditors will be performing them. That said, I believe we have a strategy in place that should work. Fun times! H2H

Well, I'm confused. Seems to me like j_dude77 is not evaluating past performance at all. Seems to me what is being evaluated is evidence of past performance without any regard to relevance, complexity, etc. For example, I can create the world's greatest audit report but it's going to cost you quite a bit of money and take a really long time. Other concerns: The audit report is the result of the work but it is not evidence of the work. The work is evidenced by the working papers that support the conclusions reached, which are documented in the audit report. If you aren't evaluating the working papers then you're just evaluating a pretty piece of writing. In addition, what differentiates audit reports from each other? What constitutes a "great" audit report from a merely "adequate" audit report? Both excellent and poor audit reports exhibit the same characteristics: objective, scope of work, methodology, conclusion, signature. How do you tell the difference? I always thought past performance was a documented rating/discussion in a government system, and evaluators also looked at relevance of the past performance rating(s) to the work being proposed. I'm not seeing that here. [ETA: What Joel posted.] In short: I'm with the attorneys. If I were going to be evaluating audit firms I would care very much about the personnel staffing the work. I would want to see resumes and CPA designations and minimum levels of relevant experience and minimum levels of training. The better the people, the better the result, or so my experience informs me. I would try to get the best audit team for my budget, and let the audit report take care of itself. Hope this helps.

So it's now been nearly 3 weeks since natavas posted the original question. Vern and I both asked for some additional clarification. No additional clarification has been forthcoming. I make a motion to ask Bob to close this thread to further posts. Do I have a second?

You folks crack me up! It took me way too long to research the FAR Part 20 and Part 21 citations! Good job.

Culham - Fair enough!

Mr. Culham, Not that I disagree with you, but why would a CO who received a question from a 3rd party who does not currently hold a contract actually take the time to respond? If it were me I would hit "delete" because I don't know the person or the company and I have no relationship with them. H2H

bf68415, You are asking legal questions. What does your attorney say? Here are my thoughts: A ) If a small business acquires another small business, both businesses may lose their SB status. This is true regardless of the "level" of acquisition. Have you reviewed the affiliation rules of the Small Business Administration regulations? Has your attorney reviewed those rules? Even if the acquired entity loses its SB status, it may still be able to bid on its existing contract, depending on contract terms and Agency policies. Has your attorney reviewed the contract terms and the applicable policies in that area? B ) There are JVs and there are other, similar arrangements such as Teaming Agreements. Which approach has your attorney suggested? What are the benefits to the other SB entity from such an arrangement? C ) Even if you purchase the contact vehicle, why should the customer award your entity a task order? What do you bring to the table that another contract holder doesn't? Again, my thoughts are valueless and you really need to discuss this with an attorney. I know you are from a small business and good attorneys are expensive. In this case, if you don't spend the money I think you are making a really big mistake. H2H

“A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.” Robert Heinlein

Let me agree with Vern that the original question is unclear. Is natavas asking "After selection but before completion of price negotiation for a single-source contract that we are told requires submission of certified cost or pricing data, may a subcontractor claim its items are commercial items, even though it did not make such an assertion at the time of proposal submission?" Because that's what I suspect is at the bottom of this inquiry.

Jamaal, I think the real question should be: Are supervisors and SESs and HCAs reading the FAR?