Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

“H2H”, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. As for the situation here, I’m mainly trying to mention what the DoD-IG raised in their report and apparently after auditing certain contract acquisitions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

Not sure what you mean. “Within context” here, the sole source contractor only furnished data in response to government requests in 2 instances. One can’t “work through anything together” (negotiate or ask questions) with a contractor if it won’t provide any information. That’s one of the points of the IG report or IG audits of the transactions.

Transdigm did provide information--they just didn't provide everything the Government requested.

Deciding not to disclose information is part of a negotiation. Contrary to what the DoD IG and Congress believe, there's nothing wrong or shameful for withholding information that would weaken your position.

Not trying to argue with you @joel hoffman

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/when-not-to-show-your-hand/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

Transdigm did provide information--they just didn't provide everything the Government requested.

Deciding not to disclose information is part of a negotiation. Contrary to what the DoD IG and Congress believe, there's nothing wrong or shameful for withholding information that would weaken your position.

Not trying to argue with you @joel hoffman

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/when-not-to-show-your-hand/

Don, did I miss where the DoD-IG mentioned that TransDigm provided information other than cost or pricing in response to requests? Shoot, maybe the KO’s didn’t routinely ask for information? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

Speaking from the contractor's viewpoint, many contracting officers are ill-prepared to engage in such discussions. Many (not all!) don't have the critical analysis skills to understand things like carrying cost, imputed interest, inventory valuations, and the like. 

Frequently, when a contractor attempts to raise those points, the response is not a reasoned analysis; the response is: "No. Because I said so."

It can be disheartening to spend the time & effort to prepare an in-depth analysis in support of proposed pricing, only to be told "no" in such a way that one can be sure the other party didn't bother to think about what had been presented.

In DOD system acquisitions negotiations, is the understanding of these points the CO's job or the Contract Price/Cost Analyst's job?  In other words, should a CO take the analyst teammate's word for it if the teammate agrees with the contractor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok , the report said that the KO’s used price analysis for most of the parts buys and the “DLA Contracting officers requested uncertified cost data for 26 of the 107 spare parts on 27 of the 153 contracts in the audit.”

“However, TransDigm operating unit officials provided the requested uncertified cost data for only 2 spare parts on 2 contracts and did not provide uncertified cost data for the remaining 24 parts on 25 contracts.”

“Therefore contracting officers were unable to use cost analysis to determine fair and reasonable prices for sole-source spare parts that were bought in small quantities at low dollar values and instead used other price analysis methods required by the
FAR and DFARS, including historical price comparisons. In addition, 10 U.S.C. § 2306a, Federal, and DoD policies do not require contracting officers to use cost analysis when the DoD is making fair and reasonable price determinations for sole-source spare part contracts below the TINA threshold. However, we were able
to obtain uncertified cost data from TransDigm for 152 out of the 153 contracts in our sample.”

Maybe DLA needs to call in the DoD-IG for assistance in obtaining information on a routine basis. The IG was more successful in their pricing efforts  (just kidding here 🤠).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Don, did I miss where the DoD-IG mentioned that TransDigm provided information other than cost or pricing in response to requests? Shoot, maybe the KO’s didn’t routinely ask for information? 

The Government wanted cost data and Transdigm wouldn't provide it. However, they did provide commercial sales data for the same or similar items (according to their Congressional testimony). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

The Government wanted cost data and Transdigm wouldn't provide it. However, they did provide commercial sales data for the same or similar items (according to their Congressional testimony). 

Ok, pricing information, consistent with current DAR and DFARS emphasis - which is what the DoD-IG is complaining about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Ok, pricing information, consistent with current DAR and DFARS emphasis - which is what the DoD-IG is complaining about. 

Right. The IG still thinks cost data is relevant when contractors use market pricing. It's likely more of a distraction when dealing with the type of CO @here_2_help described, which may be why Transdigm didn't provide it.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...