Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About here_2_help

  • Rank
    Contributing Member
  • Birthday 12/17/1960

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

36,328 profile views
  1. I sincerely apologize if I upset you. I hope you will continue to post questions because, obviously, these are issues that need to be addressed.
  2. The fact that one of the government's arguments in the cited case was almost exactly what Marc said the prime's position was makes me think that the 52.232-7 language is not as well understood as Vern's 2nd post would indicate. (Yes, that is the legal decision to which I was referring in my 1st post.) If the interpretation of the language is "seemingly obvious" then I hope the government attorneys were sanctioned and otherwise disciplined for putting a contractor through unnecessary litigation and associated stress. I hope the CO who so completely misinterpreted the clause requirements had their warrant pulled.
  3. Yes, this is correct. The DCAA CAM suggests several options for dealing with the difference between the amounts of direct labor recorded versus actual wages paid. You should read it. Your prime is ill-informed and doesn't understand how T&M (sub)contracts work. I would suspect that you don't actually bill time-and-a-half but, instead, you bill for overtime hours as recorded at the contractual T&M billing rates. In fact, I'm surprised your prime has the information to distinguish between "standard" straight time hours and "overtime" hours, since all hours should look the same on the billing. Your CEO is correct and there is at least one legal decision that supports that position. Assuming your contract has the standard 52.232-7 payment clause, your customer is ill-informed and the position conflicts with at least one legal decision.
  4. here_2_help

    Small Business Participation Plans

    Related question: The WIFCON Home Page publishes news of interest to contracting professionals. Many of those news pieces are links to Department of Justice press releases, announcing such things as indictments, sentencing, and settlement agreements. Going back to the beginning of 2018, what percentage of DOJ press releases have been related to small business/socioeconomic status fraud? I don't know if it's easy or hard for Bob to answer that question. But my completely subjective perception is that it's been a fairly high proportion of the total.
  5. I thought Recess was cancelled this year?
  6. here_2_help

    Here we go again (maybe)

    Joel, I did not get that error using Firefox as the browser. However, I did get it when using Explorer.
  7. here_2_help

    Here we go again (maybe)

    And the DCAA.mil site appears to be back up. Or perhaps it's me using a different browser from a different computer....
  8. Or you could ask your prime to modify your subcontract to include 52.244-6, using the rationale that it would increase competition.
  9. I submit itemized time records along with my invoices, showing how I spent my time (and their money). I charge my clients for research time. It's clearly identified on my time records. I do as much research as the issue warrants. I use as many sources as the issue warrants. In a decade of consulting, no client has ever questioned being billed for research time.
  10. here_2_help

    Here we go again (maybe)

    Yes. Errored-out on both ASBCA and DCAA websites
  11. Is there some reason 52.216-11 and 52.216-12 cannot simply be one clause that applies to both contract types?
  12. here_2_help

    Progress Payments

    Yes. The contractor does not anticipate an at-completion variance greater than 20%. Unless I'm missing something, that means the CO should not reduce the progress payments on that basis. On the other hand, the contractor does anticipate an at-completion variance, some of which will be shared with the government customer. The question at hand is whether the loss ratio calculation associated with current period progress payment requests should anticipate the government's participation in the loss, which will reduce the final at-completion variance and thus reduce the loss ratio.
  13. FAR 32.503-6(g) addresses the situation where progress payments are being used for a contract that is in a loss position. ("If the sum of the total costs incurred under a contract plus the estimated costs to complete the performance are likely to exceed the contract price, the contracting officer shall compute a loss ratio factor and adjust future progress payments to exclude the element of loss.") Question: How does the loss ratio calculation work in a FPIF (firm target) situation? May the contractor use the agreed-upon formula to offset some of the estimated costs to complete for purposes of reducing the loss ratio, even though the final price has not yet been negotiated? I've looked through my reference library and couldn't find an answer to that question. I'm hoping others can assist.
  14. A couple of things that we know: (1) for R&D work, fixed fee is capped at 15% of total costs (FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(A)); and (2) when cost analysis is performed a structured analysis approach must be used to develop negotiation objectives. In my mind the best way to approach the negotiation is to use the structured approach (e.g., weighted guidelines or similar) to determine the fee you believe you are entitled to receive, then negotiate that dollar value, not the percentage. Avoid discussing the fee as a percentage of certain cost elements; attempt to discuss the fee as a dollar value--but use the results of the structured approach to support your position. All I've got. Hope this helps.