Cross Charging Task Orders

[2short]

We have an IDIQ contract. On this contract we have two customers that want to help each other out but not do the paperwork. They are asking my company to do work on one Task Order and charge a different Task Order for it. We have told them that cannot be done without moving the money from one Task Order to the other, but they don't want to do the paperwork. Since they are in the same command and the source of the funding is the same they don't think it should matter.

We have told them we cannot do it in this manner. We have given them an option to tide them over until they can get the paperwork done, but this is not good enough. They want a specific FAR, CAS, or other regulation that states that this cannot be done, and I cannot find one that addresses this specifically. They want a telecon to discuss.

I don't want to get the ACO involved at this point and make the customer feel like I tattled on him, but will probably have to.

Can anyone give me a specific reference that would address this?

Thanks in advance.

[dwgerard]

I believe it would be a violation of multiple regulations and laws, not the least of which is the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits work being contracted for without funding being obligated for that purpose. I am not an attorney, nor am I working for DCAA, but you would probably need the former and need to fear the latter should your company agree to such an arrangement. As an 1102, I cannot think of any reason why the "customers" don't want to inform the PCO or ACO unless they KNOW they are doing something that would be unacceptable to the Contracting Officer. If you actually agree to their arrangement, you have instantly become a part of the problem. And as the contractor, the PCO and/or ACO will have much that he or she can do to you and little that can be done to the "customer", so YOU would likely pay the price for the transgression.

And as a contractor working for the Government, do you really think that concerns about "tattling" are a part of professionalism? Either the request is right or wrong, and in either case you should be talking to your PCO/ACO about this request, unless your company really does perform like it was on a grade school playground.

[2short]

I believe it would be a violation of multiple regulations and laws, not the least of which is the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits work being contracted for without funding being obligated for that purpose. I am not an attorney, nor am I working for DCAA, but you would probably need the former and need to fear the latter should your company agree to such an arrangement.

I tried showing them the limitation of funds clause, explaining how this would not meet the defintion of allocability, that it is against company policy since it would require employees to faslely certify their timecards, but they did not believe any of that applied to their situation because none of those addresses specifically what they want to do.

[dwgerard]

Then show them this:

FAR 31.201-4 Determining allocability.

A cost is allocable if it is assignable or chargeable to one or more cost objectives on the basis of relative benefits received or other equitable relationship. Subject to the foregoing, a cost is allocable to a Government contract if it

(a) Is incurred specifically for the contract;

( Benefits both the contract and other work, and can be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits received; or

? Is necessary to the overall operation of the business, although a direct relationship to any particular cost objective cannot be shown.

Notice the description "the contract" is not "the contracts"; it is singular, not plural. Given your "customer's" position, my red flags and sirens would be going off big time if I were in your position. What THEY believe is irrelevant, go, run, verily hie, to the PCO/ACO, and do the right thing, and save your company big time pain and problems.

[2short]

Then show them this:

FAR 31.201-4 Determining allocability.

A cost is allocable if it is assignable or chargeable to one or more cost objectives on the basis of relative benefits received or other equitable relationship. Subject to the foregoing, a cost is allocable to a Government contract if it?

(a) Is incurred specifically for the contract;

( Benefits both the contract and other work, and can be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits received; or

? Is necessary to the overall operation of the business, although a direct relationship to any particular cost objective cannot be shown.

Notice the description "the contract" is not "the contracts"; it is singular, not plural. Given your "customer's" position, my red flags and sirens would be going off big time if I were in your position. What THEY believe is irrelevant, go, run, verily hie, to the PCO/ACO, and do the right thing, and save your company big time pain and problems.

We are not going to be sticking our neck out. As I stated in the OP, we have provided them an option that is doable and does not break any laws or regs, but it is not what they want right now, and if push comes to shove I will get the ACO involved. I first wanted to try and give them an answer that would satisfy them before taking that step.