Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
CountryTime

One Mod - Two Authorities

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

I'm asking if the CO would be prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b). Yes or no?

I answered you.  You keep asking a circular question. 

Tell me how they comply with 1.602-1(b) if they reimburse a company for the unallowable cost of income tax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I answered you.  You keep asking a circular question. 

Tell me how they comply with 1.602-1(b) if they reimburse a company for the unallowable cost of income tax. 

Actually, you didn't answer me. I specifically asked whether a contracting officer was prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b).

Are you saying that a contracting officer cannot deviate from the cost principles AND comply with FAR 1.602-1(b)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, I will let you and Joel continue your discussion as an interested by stander.  However, for my benefit, could you explain what you mean by the cost principles?  Are you referring to FAR 31.205; FAR subpart 3.2, FAR subparts 31.1 and 2 or something else?  Also, are you asking how a contracting officer should resolve a conflict between FAR Part 31 and another FAR section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Actually, you didn't answer me. I specifically asked whether a contracting officer was prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b).

Are you saying that a contracting officer cannot deviate from the cost principles AND comply with FAR 1.602-1(b)?

I am not going to answer you with a one answer fits every circumstance, when you won’t answer any question. 

I provided a specific example. I will clarify that the purpose of the mod in said example was to specifically reimburse a contractor for state or federal income tax expense. It was not a cost among many other types in a proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 5:21 PM, Jamaal Valentine said:

Q: Why would we need to cite an authority?

A2: FAR includes requirements, other than the form itself, that the contracting officer 'shall cite' [insert clause] as the authority (e.g., FAR 17.207(g)) 

 

A2:  If it was required for every mod it would be so stated in Part 43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I am not going to answer you with a one answer fits every circumstance, when you won’t answer any question.

Just to review the order of events, you made the following claim:

Quote

For example, it ought to be obvious that  income taxes aren’t allowable expenses for reimbursement. If not obvious, read 31.205-41 (b) (1).

I then asked:

Quote

Are you claiming that the CO would be prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, even if they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b)?

You said you answered that question, but you didn't. So, I asked:

Quote

Are you saying that a contracting officer cannot deviate from the cost principles AND comply with FAR 1.602-1(b)?

The ball is in your court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I am not going to answer you with a one answer fits every circumstance, when you won’t answer any question. 

I provided a specific example.

joel hoffman, the bystanders are patiently and eagerly waiting for your answer about the specific question. The answer might tease out a rule or principle-- the guiding light to "[fit] every circumstance." 

That's how someone can learn. Your specific example is not helpful for learning, it's just a guarded example for you to dodge a reasonable question that might lead to a learning moment.

Can a contracting officer comply with FAR 1.602-1(b) and also deviate from the cost principles? What do you think and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PepeTheFrog was not asked the question, but is willing to answer Don Mansfield.

3 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

whether a contracting officer was prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b).

No, a contracting officer is not prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b).

6 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Can a contracting officer comply with FAR 1.602-1(b) and also deviate from the cost principles?

Yes, it is possible for a contracting officer to deviate from the cost principles while also complying with FAR 1.602-1(b).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

PepeTheFrog was not asked the question, but is willing to answer Don Mansfield.

No, a contracting officer is not prohibited from deviating from the cost principles, provided they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b).

Yes, it is possible for a contracting officer to deviate from the cost principles while also complying with FAR 1.602-1(b).

Thank you, @PepeTheFrog. I agree.

Now, do you know of anything specifically prohibiting the contracting officer from deviating from FAR 31.205-41(b)(1), assuming they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

do you know of anything specifically prohibiting the contracting officer from deviating from FAR 31.205-41(b)(1), assuming they complied with FAR 1.602-1(b)?

No. PepeTheFrog's understanding is that the contracting officer can seek an individual or class deviation from the cost principles, including those at FAR 31.205-41(b)(1). That's one reason why PepeTheFrog is curious to hear any else's opinion or analysis, like joel hoffman's.

FAR 31.101, Objectives, states:

"In recognition of differing organizational characteristics, the cost principles and procedures in the succeeding subparts are grouped basically by organizational type; e.g., commercial concerns and educational institutions. The overall objective is to provide that, to the extent practicable, all organizations of similar types doing similar work will follow the same cost principles and procedures. To achieve this uniformity, individual deviations concerning cost principles require advance approval of the agency head or designee. Class deviations for the civilian agencies require advance approval of the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council. Class deviations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration require advance approval of the Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer. Class deviations for the Department of Defense require advance approval of the Director of Defense Procurement, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jwomack said:

 

A2:  If it was required for every mod it would be so stated in Part 43.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the question was 'Why would one need to cite an authority?‘; I simply provided an answer to the specific question. 

Nonetheless, you raise an interesting point. What arguments can you provide to support your assertion?

The SF 30, which is referenced in FAR, directs contracting officers to "nsert in the corresponding blank the authority under which the modification is issued."

Perhaps your assertion is true when the SF 30 is not used since its use is only required as stated in FAR 43.301(a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer to the question is that it would take a class A idiot to grant a deviation to allow a KO to reimburse a contractor for otherwise unallowable federal or state income taxes. Income taxes theoretically would be paid by a firm on net,  after expense (costs) income. How is that in the Government’s interest?  

Thus, I’m betting that the KO wouldn’t be able to satisfy FAR 1.602-1(b) in that instance. 

I actually thought Don was going to play the old hand that one doesn’t have to agree with every aspect of a proposal as long as the bottom line is fair and reasonable. In my opinion, that’s a “safety valve” for poor, ineffective negotiators. Especially when FAR31.201-6 directs that “(c)osts that are expressly unallowable ...shall be identified and excluded from any billing, claim, or proposal applicable to a Government contract.” One shouldn’t have to resort to that sleight of hand trick in such an instance. 

At any rate, I wanted to clarify that that negotiating option isn’t available in my example. It would be glaringly clear what the KO would be agreeing to pay for in such a mod, not buried within other costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...