Jump to content

here_2_help

Members
  • Posts

    3,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by here_2_help

  1. Regardless of the nits and picks in this thread, apparently everybody here is okay with an agency policy that says the CO has to follow OGC direction regardless of their judgment in the matter. That's okay with everybody? Whatever happened to the CO's role as independent decision-maker? Should the contractor just submit all claims to the OGC, as that's the real decision-making authority at some agencies? H2H
  2. This government contracting thing is hard and, even after 30 years, I'm still working on learning it. That said, for an OGC to take that stand is rather difficult for me to understand. It's not like the FAR Part 31 cost principles don't have titles. For example, 31.205-46 is called "Travel Costs". *Shakes head*
  3. ji20874, It seems to me that you are reversing the order of things. Allocability is determined independently of allowability. A cost may be allocable to a contract as a direct cost, but not allowable pursuant to a contract term/condition. In my view, you would be better off having said, "Even if the cost is allocable to a specific contract, that doesn't mean it is allowable." H2H
  4. The contractor does not need advance approval of allowability. But if you must ... FAR 31.205-46(b) states: "Airfare costs in excess of the lowest priced airfare available to the contractor during normal business hours are unallowable except when such accommodations require circuitous routing, require travel during unreasonable hours, excessively prolong travel, result in increased cost that would offset transportation savings, are not reasonably adequate for the physical or medical needs of the traveler, or are not reasonably available to meet mission requirements. However, in order for airfare costs in excess of the above standard airfare to be allowable, the applicable condition(s) set forth above must be documented and justified." Thus, if it is a bona fide medical condition and there is a doctor's note in evidence, the upgrade to business class is allowable. Have the contractor comply with FTR rule 301-10.123 in all respects to ensure the auditors won't disallow the cost after the fact. Hope this helps
  5. As at least one other has poster noted, this isn't 100% about picking a handgun. It's about ammunition and holsters and webgear, and training and maintenance, and likely several other things I'm too unqualified to list. If it were only about a firearm, we could set up a website and pre-select which of several choices were available to a soldier, based on MOS and assignment, and some other factors. Each choice would have a negotiated price. The soldier could log onto the website from an authorized terminal (or via phone with appropriate authorization/authentication) and choose which firearm they personally preferred to carry. It could be drop-shipped from the supplier to the soldier's local armory and an invoice would be automatically generated. Easy peasy. Just like Amazon or a host of other sites. Heck, you could even set up options, such as ivory handles (not pearl) or special sights, and those would be billed directly to the soldier's personal credit card. But because it's also about those other things, it can't work that way. A general ought to understand that.
  6. Yes, "gray area" is imprecise (as is so much conversational language) and tends to be shorthand for other, longer, phraseology. For example, I often say that the allowability of legal costs is a gray area as costs are incurred, because we won't know whether the costs are allowable, partially allowable, or unallowable until the matter is decided. Moreover, the allowability of legal settlement costs may be a gray area, because there is complex case law (including Tecom and Boeing North American) that can further complicate matters. So I tell people it's a "gray area" but what I mean is that we'll have to decide how to claim the costs on a case-by-case basis, based on individual circumstances, including whether we want to be conservative or aggressive. In this particular case, "gray area" = "it's complicated and I don't want to take the time to explain it to you and then have you ask me questions that put me in a position of defending the cost principle and explaining judicial decisions" H2H
  7. Bob -- I can see it. I will use it. H2H
  8. Jamaal, You saw that the publisher of the study cited in the article is a firm that "helps executives in large organizations govern content quality with less cost and risk," right? I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though. H2H
  9. I don't think we need a new category. Some of us think there are too many categories already. Instead, maybe it's time to replace WOSB with a new category that covers all gender and sexuality-related historical disadvantage issues. Not going to happen anytime soon, but still worth considering, in my view. H2H "Hey, if you want black nominees every year, you need to just have black categories. That’s what you need. You need to have black categories. You already do it with men and women. Think about it: There’s no real reason for there to be a man and a woman category in acting. C’mon. There’s no reason. It’s not track and field. You don’t have to separate ‘em. You know, Robert De Niro’s never said, 'I better slow this acting down, so Meryl Streep can catch up.'" -- Chris Rock, 2016 Academy Awards
  10. I agree this is a valid concern, but it all seems so speculative at this point. Does anybody have any concrete examples of "bad faith" self-certifications that are linked to gender choice versus birth certificate? In my (limited) experience the issues with WOSB certification have been about a male exerting control in fact while a female is a "figure head" that does no actual management. It's often been about a husband using the wife as the company CEO but really doing all the work. This concern would not be that. I doubt that anybody will take action on this concern at the Federal level until there is a real issue that surfaces -- e.g., a protest where the protester asserts that the winning WOSB is helmed by somebody who is not a "real" woman. Until then, I can't see people eager to tackle this concern, especially in an election year. H2H
  11. I'm confused. Why would the contractor owe the government money for deficiencies in workmanship? Are you proposing to withhold payments as an offset against a future government claim against the contractor? Why type of contract is this? H2H
  12. enriquem13, I'm not sure why the government customer has to "approve" the airfare in advance. The normal course of events is for the contractor to incur a cost and seek reimbursement. If the CO is unsure of the allowability of the cost, it may be challenged--in which case the contractor must support it. Is the contractor seeking an Advance Agreement regarding cost allowability (not a bad idea)? If not, why is this an issue at this time? Hope this helps
  13. REA'n Maker, If the allocation base is not estimated as a future contract cost, then of course the associated FCCOM is not estimated either. On the other hand, if the contractor proposes the allocation base as a future contract cost, and the CO accepts it, then the FCCOM follows along, just like overhead and/or G&A. Now kindly stop moving the goalposts.
  14. REA'n Maker, Your post about use of capital assets on an individual contract being dispositive regarding the allowability of FCCOM with respect to that contract is just wrong. Before I get into why it is wrong, I want to offer a word of advice. I know you are fairly new to this site -- and Welcome! -- but "Ask a Professor" answers are not normally considered to be adequate support for assertions around here. Further, your statements about allocability are somewhat questionable. Your cites/quotes are accurate, insofar as they go, but they don't really offer the support for your assertion that you may think they do. Here's how FCCOM works: FCCOM is either calculated by the contractor, or not. If the contractor chooses to calculate FCCOM then the calculation methodology must comply with 31.205-10 and CAS 414/417 in order to be an allowable cost. If the contractor does all that, then allowable FCCOM is distributed to the appropriate cost pools and allocated to contracts using the same allocation base as the cost pool (which is what your Contract Pricing Finance Guide is saying). For example, if FCCOM is distributed to Engineering Overhead, and Engineering Overhead is allocated on a direct labor dollar base, then as Engineering direct labor is charged to a contract, overhead and FCCOM follows that direct labor. That's how FCCOM is both allowable and allocable. It has nothing to do with whether or not a contract benefits from the deployment of a capital asset. As others have posted, in order for FCCOM to be allowable on a specific contract -- and by that I mean billable via public voucher and reimbursable -- it must have been proposed. No proposed FCCOM, no billable FCCOM, even if both allowable in the general sense and allocable to the contract. In fact, some contractors choose not to bid (and claim) FCCOM on selected contracts for competitive reasons; they calculate it and distribute it and allocate it to all contracts, but they may claim it on less than 100% of their contracts. Hope this helps Edited to add: The cognizant CO doesn't get to decide; it's the contractor's choice. If the contractor proposes FCCOM and calculates it in accord with the applicable rules, it's allowable. Period. See 31.201-1.
  15. Not a military person and I never served, so I'm hesitant to voice an opinion on how to foster disruptive innovation from within an hierarchical command-and-control structure. Where I work we are digging into General McChrystal's "Team of Teams" approach to adaptive leadership without knowing if it will work for us. We are also fans of rapid acquisition approaches. I will say that the (retired) Marines and (retired) Navy folks I work with are all, without exception, a pleasure to work with and very supportive of process improvement ideas. Anything that improves performance is supported. H2H
  16. Ah, the infamous Dave Capitano memo. It's worth reading but it's not gospel. Karen Manos eviscerated the illustrations used in that memo in an article that I can no longer find on the internet. I think it was called "There You Go Again" in reference to an old Ronald Reagan quote. See if you can find it; it's also good reading. H2H
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. Probably a wise decision on a public forum, or on Agency premises.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
×
×
  • Create New...