here_2_help

Vern, Excellent article -- thanks for sharing the link. It led me to the tentative maxim: "Buy the way you fight." H2H

I've worked for a few contractor procurement shops and this question makes no sense to me. Competition is never required at any level. It's one way of demonstrating price reasonableness

Sorry Vern. Been on the road. To answer your question an interdivisional transfer is a make (unless a commercial item). Thus I think there are no flowdowns in the sense of prime to sub agreements. Instead the company has already agreed to all clauses in the contract and the performing division must comply with all applicable clauses in the contract H2H

Please review FAR 15.407-2(b) before you decide that work transferred between affiliated entities under a common control requires the flowdown of any clauses whatsoever.

Patrick, I can't speak for DCMA reviewers, but I can say with some authority (based on my experience) that DCAA auditors do NOT understand the concept of electronic records. At one (very large DOD) contractor we had electronic P.O.'s and electronic invoices and electronic receivers and EFT payments and it simply horrified them. How could we do a three way match when there were no paper copies to compare? Does DCAA's discomfort make it wrong? Obviously not -- and many companies are, as you say, moving in that direction because it saves time and money. But in my view the DCAA audit guidance is woefully behind the times in this particular area. And that creates risk for contractors seeking to have their claimed costs be found to be reasonable, allowable, and allocable.

?? Did I misinterpret the original question? It seemed to me that the paper records were the original records and sylvia wanted to scan the original (paper) records, save the scanned copies, and then throw away the original (paper) records. Upon audit, sylvia would print out the scanned copies as paper copies. Did I miss something? H2H

Just make sure to comply with FAR 4.703(c) and (d), as well as 4.705-3(f).

I like polls! But maybe a better metric might be average length of time at an individual organization over one's career. In this poll, the older the responder, the more changes we would expect -- so it's got some built-in age bias.

Just thought I'd pop in there to note that the LRIP decision may be delayed on the KC-46 tanker until some technical problems are worked-out. http://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-tanker-idusl2n1732ge?RPC=49

No, Joel, you are wrong here. There is nothing in the cost principle that requires an Advance Agreement or even advance approval as a condition of cost allowability. It may be prudent but it is not required. As you well know, payments made on cost-type contracts are interim payments, subject to audit and review--often years after the costs have been incurred. The cost principle is clearly stating that it is not enough to meet the exception conditions listed, but that the contractor must also document the exceptions to the satisfaction of the contracting officer. The CO may require the contractor's documentation as part of the normal invoice review process or as part of an after-the-fact audit/review. But there is no requirement for a pre-travel review/approval. A savvy contractor will require an employee seeking to take advantage of a travel exception to submit documentation and obtain approval from their management before the employee travels. But that is fundamentally different from requiring the employee to submit documentation and obtain approval from the contracting officer before the employee travels.

Not sure how to answer this question. Can the original poster (MV2009) please restate and provide details? 1. Who are the "individuals" MV2009 is asking for input? Government or prime contractors or whom? 2. Why would MV2009 think that each end-of-life buy would NOT be individually negotiated? 3. What "firm" should provide the data MV2009 is seeking? The OEM or the contractor? 4. Who is "they" who are not willing to provide necessary support or information? 5. What "information" -- if provided timely -- would help prevent a redesign? This is an important topic, and it's an industry-wide problem, and it affects both contractor and government. It's worth discussing and digging into. But the question is such that I can't even begin to fashion an answer. H2H

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

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*

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

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

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.

Is this the same effort that J.V. reported in August?

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

Bob -- I can see it. I will use it. H2H

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

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

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

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

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

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.