here_2_help

Of course the PTO payout is optional. Some companies have "use it or lose it" and other companies combine vacation with sick leave--and there is an entitlement to earned vacation but not to unused sick leave. Each company is different and, as JRT132 noted, each state has different requirements. H2H

CHILINVLN, The answer will be found in the employer's HR policy manual.

Good luck, lacylu. I believe DCAA will be happy to answer your questions. The most recent audit agency interpretation of the NDAA audit prohibition is that it only prohibits actual audits, and even then audits of mixed (DoD and non-DoD) contracts are not prohibited. Since your question is not an audit, I believe they will be willing and able to respond. H2H

"the company change its cost accounting practices due to a new division." Well ... again, I don't know what you are describing. Just adding a new division doesn't mean that cost accounting practices have changed. "Cost accounting practice" is a term of art with a very specific meaning, and there are some key court cases that stand for the proposition that a reorganization is not a change in cost accounting practice (see Perry v. Martin Marietta Corp, 47 F.3d. 1134). Creation of new labor categories and skill mixes are not necessarily indicative of changes in cost accounting practice -- but they might be. Maybe one or more cost accounting practices did change -- but which ones? Did the contractor submit a revised Disclosure Statement? If so, there should be an accompanying matrix that identifies all changes. Where were the changes? What -- specifically -- changed? I'm sensing you are a bit overwhelmed here (forgive me if I'm wrong about that). Have you gotten DCAA involved? What do the auditors say? H2H

lacylu, The term "company restructure" is ambiguous. Can you tell us what is actually happening? Is a restructure the same as a "reorganization" or does it mean something else? You say that the contract's CAS clause requires the company to inform you 60 days prior to its restructure. If the restructure resulted in changes to cost accounting practice (as that term is defined by the CAS regulations), then you have a good point. But if there were no changes to cost accounting practice, then there is no requirement to make a prior notification. You say that the limitation of funds clause is being used to reject the contractor's cost increases that stem from the reorganization. That seems to be a valid approach, except at some point the contractor will stop work, right? You say that the contractor's new labor categories have much higher rates and ask whether that conflicts with allocability requirements. Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. The labor categories are fixed hourly rates, correct? The relate to the T&M portion of your contract, I presume. If so, cost increases experienced by the contractor (for whatever reason) would seem to be irrelevant to the billing rates. To sum up, I'm pretty confused about what your are asking about. If the contractor did a reorg with no changes to cost accounting practice, then you may not have a lot of support for your positions. But if the contractor did make changes to cost accounting practice, then not only will you have a lot of support, but the contractor is required to submit a cost impact analysis to show the impacts to all CAS-covered contracts. Hope this helps

Okay -- I will call them on Monday. That's a phone call, right? The kind of thing folks used to do back in the pre-internet days?

I don't know if anything has changed for anybody else, but I STILL cannot access the ASBCA website. Saying that the security for the .MIL addresses is impacting access doesn't seem correct, because the DCAA website -- www.DCAA.MIL -- is available. At this point, my work is actually being negatively impacted by the lack of access, because I want to research some decisions. I would like to write a letter of complaint but, quite honestly, I don't know to whom to address my complaint. Does anybody have any suggestions? Thanks for the help!

Navy, You can't rely solely on the clauses or lack of clauses to determine CAS coverage. At a minimum, you also need to review the Section K Reps & Certs that were submitted by the contractor, to review the CAS statements (or elections) made therein. H2H

No. That is not cross-charging as you (and the IG) defined it in your post. However, it may indicate a defectively priced proposal--assuming that the contractor knew that all three contracts would be awarded and that the employee did not intend to work overtime in order to staff each contract as proposed. But those are some big assumptions. All Company ABC would have to say is that the employee works overtime in order to meet the needs of each contract. Hope this helps

Navy, When I posted "the clause could certainly be read to be self-deleting" I was agreeing that the clause could be read to be self-deleting. However, my understanding is that the FAR Councils disagreed -- publicly, in writing -- with that interpretation. H2H

On what basis did your client (the prime) determine that the price being paid for the commercial item subcontract was fair and reasonable? H2H

Recently a fellow consultant posted something inane on LinkedIn. I mean something almost unintelligible and quite obviously wrong. But because that fellow consultant had more than 25 years with DCAA there was instant credibility. It sparked me to think about the difference between expertise and the application of expertise. If you don't apply your knowledge to further the objectives of your entity, then your knowledge is kind of worthless, in my view. Or, as my friend once said, "I am full of useless superior knowledge." I am not a government employee but I interact with government employees nearly every day. To me, they all seem to be working really hard but very few seem to know why they are doing anything. They have taskers and metrics and priorities that have to be reported all the time, but nobody seems to think there is any strategy in which they may be playing a role. They seem to be a collection of individuals doing their best, but they have no overall direction. That's my perception, anyway. To the initial question, regarding whether the acquisition system should be changed to prevent or detect mistakes, what I see is that the system is already doing that by adding process on top of process on top of process. There are peer reviews, management reviews, headquarter reviews. There are review boards. How long does it take a CO to write a PNM? Not long -- but it can take weeks to get it approved. Then there is another approval cycle for post-negotiation memoranda, right? It literally takes two separate processes to get approval to, for example, negotiate an FPRA. And if DCAA disagrees with the DCMA ACO, there is yet another process to mediate and resolve that disagreement, because nobody wants bad feelings (or a phone call to the IG). Not sure where I'm going with this, except to say that process doesn't seem to be the way to fix the problems associated with a lack of expertise. It would seem that you fix those problems by giving people more expertise and letting them use it -- and then holding them accountable for mistakes.

Too bad nobody thought of that with respect to the DFARS contractor business systems compliance regime, which imposes unique requirements on those who have DFARS clauses. H2H

Navy, As I recall (and it's been a few years), when the new CAS clauses were issued, the FAR Council clearly stated in the promulgating comments that the clauses were NOT self-deleting. I know a lot of practitioners think they are, and the clause could certainly be read to be self-deleting, but the FAR Council said no. (As least to my recollection.) At the prime level, this is not a very prevalent problem; but at the subcontract level it certainly is. H2H

You can also find a very useful flowchart in the DCAA Contract Audit Manual in Chapter 8.

Vern, Yes, I mis-cited. And I'll accept Navy's research findings because I didn't have time (yet) to do my own research. And finally my experience with T&M contracts was drawn from mid-size and larger contractors, with large rosters and multiple salary bands--and multiple indirect rate pools. I accept that smaller companies, with only one or two people in each hourly labor rate category, and only one overhead pool, might be able to have an easier time managing their contracts. H2H

Well that's not right because FAR 30.604 states-- “Fixed-price contracts and subcontracts” means-- (1) Fixed-price contracts and subcontracts described at 16.202, 16.203 (except when price adjustments are based on actual costs of labor or material, described at 16.203-1(a)(2)), and 16.207; (2) Fixed-price incentive contracts and subcontracts where the price is not adjusted based on actual costs incurred (Subpart 16.4); (3) Orders issued under indefinite-delivery contracts and subcontracts where final payment is not based on actual costs incurred (Subpart 16.5); and (4) The fixed-hourly rate portion of time-and-materials and labor- hours contracts and subcontracts (Subpart 16.6).

ji20874, I disagree with your assertion that, in a T&M contract, the contractor "assumes very little cost risk." If we just look at the "T" part of the contract, that is a firm, fixed-price per labor hour, with all the same cost risks of any FFP contract type. In addition, each T&M contract has a ceiling price "that the contractor exceeds at its own risk." (FAR 16.601(d)(2).) Indeed, I would assert just the opposite -- that a T&M contract is just about the contract type with the highest cost risk for a contractor. Each hourly billing rate must be estimated, often months before performance starts, based on a personnel roster that will almost certainly change between the time of proposal submittal and commencement of performance. Each employee may receive salary increases between the time of proposal submittal and commencement of performance, and/or during contract performance. Indirect rates may change at any time. Performance may require use of overtime, which does not vary the negotiated rates. The contractor assumes all that risk and, in return, is offered a fee that excludes the cost of materials (FAR 52.232-7(b)(7).) H2H

Mr. Culham, If you go back to the original question, it has nothing at all to do with travel. It is for meals that are provided to employees who are not in TDY travel status. That is not to say that your other points/questions/comments lack validity. But this has nothing at all to do with travel. H2H

In the general interest of education and development, let me add: When discussing whether a direct cost is allowable or not, the pre-FAR acronym RTFC should always be part of any answer. It should be inferred as part of any response, but of course it often needs to be written as well. RTFC = Read The F'n Contract To which Vern adds, correctly, TLAHAWYR. TLAHAWYR = Think Long And Hard About What You Read H2H

Don, Quoting -- Warrant, as used in contracting officer authority – Appears once, incorrectly, at FAR 33.210 Contracting officer’s authority. The term used in FAR 1.603 and elsewhere is “Certificate of Appointment.”

I'm confused. Shouldn't it be "Certificate of Appointment" Board? Didn't I read something about misuse of terms in a certain WIFCON blog entry? H2H

ji20874, To a certain extent, I agree with you that the contract clause language is important. On the other hand, if a contractor's allowable cost were limited only to what it had included in its initial proposal, then we would never need equitable adjustments. So I think you are taking things a bit too far with you flat declaration that if the costs were not included in the proposal before award, then they are absolutely "not reimbursable, period." H2H

Oh, that's a good catch Mr. Culham. Well done. H2H

Teat6351, I assume "business meals" are company-paid meals that involve more than one employee and which take place independently of whether personnel are in TDY travel status. If so, to answer your question requires a look at your company's Disclosure Statement or, if there is no D/S, then its policies and procedures. What document establishes that certain meetings will have company-hosted food/drink? What circumstances control whether the cost of food/beverages consumed at such meetings are directly charged to a customer contract? Basically, what I'm driving at is that there are meetings that take place during working hours. Some of them may involve food and beverages and others may just be meetings. Some of the meetings that have hosted food/drink may be directly charged to a contract and others to overhead/G&A. What does your company policies/procedures have to say about those meals? Once you identify which meals are legitimate direct charges, then you need to tell us if they were proposed in your bid. Can we find the costs of those meals in the Travel/ODC CLIN? If not, why not? Finally, in answer to your question, if your contract does not have 52.216-7 then FAR Part 31 is likely to be not applicable to this discussion. However, you may be able to negotiate something with the contracting officer if you have a consistent, and well-documented, practice of charging such meals direct and you included an estimated cost for those meals in your cost proposal. Hope this helps.