Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About elgueromeromero

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,581 profile views
  1. Yes, it's a CPFF and 52.216-7 will be included. The indirect rates aren't fixed--they're actually ceilings. The Gov't is calling them capped rates. I apologize if I said they were fixed or made it sound like they're fixed. So we can bill at our actual indirect rates up to the ceiling/caps. Hopefully that clears things up.
  2. They're ceilings. The Gov't is calling them "capped rates". Yes, we will bill at our actual rates up to the NTE ceiling rates.
  3. The proposed indirects are ceilings for proposal and billing purposes. So we can bill actual indirect rates but NTE the ceiling/capped indirect rates established in the contract. Does that clear it up?
  4. Retreadfed, the indirects proposed by each offeror will be the established capped indirect rates for proposal and billing purposes on task orders should the offeror be awarded a contract.
  5. I'm sorry, I misspoke. We aren't covered by the requirement for cost or pricing data as this is a competitive procurement. From what I understand, we also don't have billing rates. We have very few cost-reimbursement contracts so we calculate our rates on a contract by contract basis, and usually just end up using our most recent DCAA-accepted rates. What you're saying makes sense. However, our experience has been that Contracting Officers almost always want to see SOMETHING from DCAA, and our "accepted" rates letter from DCAA is what we typically provide. I think it gives the Contracting Officers a sense of security to see that DCAA has reviewed our rates and accepted them. The impression we get is that they expect our proposed rates to match what DCAA has accepted. But you're saying that we shouldn't rely on these rates as they likely aren't the most current, accurate, and complete data, which seems to make more sense given we don't have an FPRA. So back to my question, would you suggest that we forget about the rates we used in our initial proposal and that we update our rates for our final proposal revision to reflect" a current projection of future rates, based on anticipated costs and anticipated revenues"?
  6. We used our 2016 incurred rates to come up with our estimated cost for a CPFF proposal. DCAA did an informal review (not a full-blown audit) of these rates and they were "accepted". It's been about a year since we submitted our proposal and we finally received notice that we've been included in the competitive range and we're now in negotiations with the Gov't. We now have DCAA-accepted 2017 incurred indirect rates, which have changed slightly from our 2016 rates. I don't know if we should use the 2016 rates that we originally used to estimate our cost for the proposal, or if there's some expectation or requirement that we update our rates to the more current 2017 incurred rates. The RFP and negotiations letter are both silent on this matter.
  7. The costs obviously don't benefit other contracts, but my question is whether they somehow benefit the contract in question. If so, then I think we should be able to charge the costs as direct costs. If not, then I don't think they pass the test for allocability and we therefore can't bill them as direct costs. Am I missing something? Probably. That's why I came here.
  8. We have several CR contracts. Yes, we have other contracts that are subject to the cost principles. The invoicing concerns in this situation are related to direct costs. I believe for actual full-blown audits, the costs are accounted for as indirect costs (not 100% sure on this). Our contract is silent on this issue. thank
  9. The Government is auditing several previously submitted invoices (some paid, some pending payment) on our CPFF contract. They are requesting that we meet in person as they have several questions on our invoicing process and they claim to have found several discrepancies in some of our invoices. In the request for the meeting they stated that they don't think any costs incurred for travel or time associated with explaining and defending our billing processes and these discrepancies should be chargeable to the contract. Are these costs typically allowable? This seems to be sort of a gray area. I've reviewed FAR 31.2 and it seems to come down to whether these costs would meet the following test for allocability: (a) Is incurred specifically for the contract; YES (b) Benefits both the contract and other work, and can be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits received; or ?? (c) Is necessary to the overall operation of the business, although a direct relationship to any particular cost objective cannot be shown. ??
  10. Yes, I understand this. I was thinking more in terms of what should have been included in our subcontract when I cited this. Our subcontract includes a laundry list of FAR clauses and says to flowdown "to the extent applicable". We'd like to avoid scaring off a small company providing a commercial item with a bunch of unnecessary FAR clauses. If our subcontract gives us the discretion to flow down clauses "to the extent applicable" , couldn't we justify that the only "applicable" clauses in our subcontract that should be flowed down to our subs are those that are included in 52.244-6, since those clauses are the only clauses that are really applicable to a subcontract for a commercial item?
  11. Correct, we have a subcontract with a company who holds the prime federal contract. There are a number of clauses listed under the "flowdown" section of our subcontract with the prime, but this section states that they are to be flowed down "to the extent applicable". So because we don't have privity of contract with the federal agency, and because the prime didn't include 52.244-6 in our subcontract, we should ignore FAR 44.402(b) and basically go through all of our clauses and flow down all that include a "shall include in all subcontracts" prescription (as applicable)? So we'll end up including clauses that wouldn't normally be flowed down to a commercial item subcontract, such as 52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases, for one example.
  12. Background We were issued a subcontract from a 1st-tier federal subcontractor to perform construction work. FAR 52-244-6 was not included in our subcontract. Now, we're about to issue a commercial subcontract and we're wondering if we should include the flowdowns listed in 52-244-6 that should have been in our subcontract. There are other clauses listed in our subcontract, but in light of FAR 44.402(b), I think that only the clauses listed in 52-244-6 need to be flowed down to any subcontract for commercial items/services. Question Should we flow down the clauses in 52-244-6 in our commercial subcontract even though that clause isn't in our subcontract, or do we need to go back to the company that issued the subcontract to us and ask that they modify it to add FAR 52-244-6? Or are we not obligated to flow down any FAR clauses?
  13. Is there any regulation, legal precedent, or OCI issue that would preclude a contractor from receiving two awards under the same IDIQ contract and then subsequently competing for task orders under the IDIQ? Background: The Gov't issues an IDIQ that consists of two pools: Small Business and Unrestricted. The RFP states that some task order competitions will be set aside for the SB pool, and others will be Unrestricted, and that the Gov't anticipates a total of 10 contracts will be awarded (5 SB and 5 Unrestricted). The RFP goes on to state that for the Unrestricted task order competitions, the SB IDIQ contract holders may compete against the Unrestricted IDIQ contract holders. Let's say there's a LB contractor who submits a proposal for the Unrestricted pool, and then also submits for the SB pool under a SB Mentor-Protege arrangement. Also, let's say the Protege under this Mentor-Protege arrangement will be a named team member/subcontractor under the LB contractor's Unrestricted contract. Is there any issue here with regard to OCIs, limiting competition, collusion, etc? If the LB had a good reason to want to submit a proposal from both the Mentor-protege entity and the LB entity for an Unrestricted task order competition, is there anything that would preclude it from doing so? Thanks in advance.