Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

here_2_help

Members
  • Content count

    1,808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About here_2_help

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Birthday 12/17/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SoCal
  • Interests
    No special interests, really. Kind of a jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none kind of person.

Recent Profile Visitors

34,949 profile views
  1. Honestly, I think a number of people are fed up with seemingly infinite extensions of incumbency because of reasons (some legit, others not so much). This is what you get when you don't get contracts awarded timely. And I didn't see anybody here up in arms about measuring PALT. In my view, that's another message from our fiends (sic) in Congress that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that acquisition results can be improved, in terms of timely contract awards.
  2. Section 803(g)(3) of the 2018 NDAA states: (Emphasis added.) What does that mean in layperson's terms? Does that mean when the bill was signed into law, or when somebody issues implementing regulations, or what?
  3. The key issue, which both Vern and Joel have already noted, is that we do not know if the contractor must deliver hours by specified individual, or by defined labor category, or simply by anybody with the basic qualifications. The reason this matters is that individuals do get sick and take leave, but companies do not. In other words, the government may reasonably expect the contractor to have additional personnel on hand to fill in when people get sick or take leave, such that the required hours are still delivered. If individuals (e.g., key personnel) are being specified, you bid their actual expected availability at their actual expected pay rates; but if not then you bid the hours as specified and make sure you have the workforce available to deliver those hours. The latter approach includes blending of expected pay rates to calculate a composite average.
  4. Plan of Action for SB Goals

    Twice now I've developed first-time SB plans for contractors. Twice now the companies wanted the plans but they didn't want policies, procedures or anything that would show HOW the goals were going to be reached. They didn't want any changes to their org structures. They wanted the plans to show their prime, or their contracting officers, but that was all. Depressing.
  5. I'm having a hard time understanding why this "offer" would be entertained. The only thing I could come up with is that the agency feels that it has fallen short of its bid protest quota, and needs to create more reasons that disappointed bidders will file protests.
  6. Commercial Item Justification

    StePa, I agree with your approach. If it helps at all, there is a brand new DFARS rule (which obviously applies to government contracting officers, not prime buyers) that basically requires a prior CID to be accepted as valid, unless the CO can show why not.
  7. Commercial Item Justification

    Can you please clarify? Do you sell the same type of parts, without the minor mods that are "customarily available in the marketplace", to customers other than this prime? If so, can you demonstrate that? Can you demonstrate that the mods you make are, in fact, "customarily available in the marketplace"?
  8. Defense Small Business (Act)

    I like Pepe's Frog vision.
  9. 1. This is a legal question. I'm not a lawyer! But I suspect a lawyer would tell you that the company needs to disclose all facts. Right now, there is an intention to explore a future sale, but no deal. There does not seem to be even an identified buyer. Is the intent to explore a possible future sale a fact? Maybe. 2. What information could the company include at this point? Obviously, as the deal develops there will be more information; but right now? Not much. Just an intent to find a suitor and to explore a possible future sale if the price and terms are right. Seems pretty vague to me. 3 and 4. There are recent bid protests on this topic, having to do with Lockheed, SAIC, and Leidos. And those are just off the top of my head. You should research them. Hope this helps.
  10. January 2018 Volume 1 Report

    From my interactions with certain team members, this was always the intention. They told me they were going bold. (In candor I didn't take them all the seriously.) I suspect they needed to get their ducks aligned before going public with some of these recommendations.
  11. January 2018 Volume 1 Report

    Just finished skimming Section 2, Contract Compliance and Audit. It seems like the adults have (finally) shown up. I'm still skeptical that the recommendations will survive DCAA attacks and political maneuvering, but I like what I read.
  12. First-Tier Subcontract Reporting

    Two thoughts. 1. Better to get compliant now rather than worry about how things might look. 2. Compliance with 52.204-10 is checked during CPSRs. You may not qualify for a CPSR now, but you will one day. It would be smarter to have good habits in place before that day comes.
  13. I'm honestly confused by how one would transfer a commercial item at cost, unless the costs were compliant with FAR. At least, I've never seen it. The DCAA CAM position you cited to is what I have historically believed to be the case and it's what I was stating before you challenged me. However, I would never ever cite to a DCAA CAM position to support any argument I would make (I know better than that). If I can't find support for my position in the FAR or agency supplements then I am forced to admit I cannot support my position. All things considered, I think you articulated my (supportable) position much better than I did. Unsurprisingly.
  14. Busy today so I'll summarize. 1. There are three conditions that must be met in order to use the 31.205-26(e) exception: (1) It is the established practice of the transferring organization to price interorganizational transfers at other than cost for commercial work of the contractor or any division, subsidiary or affiliate of the contractor under a common control; and (2) The item being transferred qualifies for an exception under 15.403-1(b) and (3) The contracting officer has not determined the price to be unreasonable. All three conditions must be met. 2. If those circumstances apply, then 15.401 says "“Subcontract” (except as used in 15.407-2) also includes a transfer of commercial items between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor or a subcontractor (10 U.S.C. 2306a(h)(2) and 41 U.S.C. 3501(a)(3))." 3. My view is that normally intercompany work is a make, as per 15.407-2(b) but transferring commercial items activates the overriding definition quoted above, making the transfer a buy. I may have overreach in stating that the arms-length buy requires certified cost or pricing data so I withdraw that assertion.
  15. 1. The point is that when a contractor uses the exception within 31.305-26(e) and transfers at price, that converts the transaction from "make" to "buy". Thus you are subject to TINA and the rest of FAR Part 15 that implements TINA. If you have an exception to obtaining certified cost/price data, so be it. But if you can't find an exception then you have to comply. 2. Not exactly. When you take advantage of the exception within 31.205-26(e) then you must establish price reasonableness (though the way it's worded is odd). You have to convince a CO that your price is reasonable, using one of the techniques available for doing so. Simply asserting that your affiliated company is selling the items to your division at its established commercial price (or less) won't be sufficient (in my opinion). You have to have data. Perhaps historical price data will be good enough, but if your affiliated division offers unrecorded discounts (e.g., trial offers, loaners, etc.) then that won't do it. 3. Yes, TCI = Total Cost Input. Yes, now is the time to establish your transfer pricing and burdening practices for your IOT transactions.
×