Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

I have question regarding WAWF process for paying invoices under fixed price type contracts. From my research it seems the responsibility for approving invoice can be delegated to the COR. However, what if the contract, through our wonderful contracting ideas (example: to avoid classifying a CLIN as a LH CLIN we developed a TE which breaks down the Labor categories, and we tell the contractor to invoice per what labor was use... thus the CLIN was developed where Quantity = the dollar amount for the CLIN only it is address as a number; and the U/I = $1. Which captures a so called fixed dollar amount for that CLIN) -- please let me know if this sounds confusing. Anyways, it seems this approach kind of reflects a LH CLIN only we called it fixed. Having stated all this, I feel this should have oversight by the KO; thus, the KO should be the final approval when the contractor invoices in WAWF. The COR should just review the invoice for accuracy and consistency with the terms and conditions of the contract. I can understand, if the contract was a true fixed price contract with a weekly/monthly CLIN(s). However, to me when a contract that is identified as FFP, but in reality the invoicing is broken down by units per $1, and every invoice for that month is not fixed (i.e., set dollar amount) -- there seems to be a high risk of fraud or negative outcome... I would personally require a KOs approval rather than the COR for these actions. So my question is: Are there any FAR citations, policies that identify approval of invoicing? If COR can approve Fixed Price type contract invoices -- is it still acceptable to have the COR approve invoice per the example of fixed price contract I had addressed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contractor is required to invoice IAW the contract CLINS and instructions in the Contract. Unless the contract specifically states that the Contractor is required to provide supporting documentation for each submitted invoice, he/she is not required to do so. Do you trust the COR to work within his appointment instructions? From my experience - KOs to not get involved with accepting or rejecting invoices - that is the job of the receiving authority or COR. If you have no proof of fraud, why are thinking there may be some?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not concerning the approval process (and that is what was asked), addressing the idea of the CLIN structure ---for DoD see https://dfas4dod.dfas.mil/cps/contractingofficers/:

OSD AT&L DPAP Policy Memo "USA001601-11-DPAP - Contract Line Item Pricing Integrity", which prohibits the use of "dollars" or "lump sum" as a unit of measure on a contract line item. Just a FYI which may change the approval process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I apologize for not providing a response right away... Reasons I brought this topic up is that prior to the memo (USA001601-11-DPAP - Contract Line Item Pricing Integrity) I have encountered numerous contracting agency both CONUS and OCONUS (e.g., Afghanistan) awarding Fixed Price contracts to fulfill the emphasis on awarding FP contracts; however, as stated earlier, some (1102s) have found "work around" on this which seemingly functions like a T&M/Labor hour contract, where we quantify each invoice base on services rendered for a time period (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly). For example, a trucking company invoice would be base on how much load they’ve delivered for a month. The “load” encompasses labor, weight of load, type of load, and the travel time or delivery time. After each delivery, contractor send its invoice to the COR; COR review and approve invoice in WAWF – invoices vary base on the factors addressed earlier. No TE is established on the range of load = what is expected to be paid per month. Basically, with the exception of the contractor sending its invoice on a monthly basis, each invoice is not a set amount. Initially, I understood this process, and am confident that the COR is maintaining oversight. However, it got me thinking after the Army Auditing Agency (triple A) brought about in their report that this process on contracting oversight was risky. If you think about it, the KO ultimately has the overall responsibility so why isn’t the KO not maintaining oversight on this as well even if it is just checking the invoice prior to COR approval, as what MegB stated? Overall, I just want to get a feel for other KOs thought on this matter – on contracts that are awarded as FP but are not absolute FP, in my opinion. I am not construing anything that the COR is unethical, I am just looking at it from a risk perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...