joehoman3

Dear here_2_help: Your first choice is completely unacceptable since we have multiple contracts with direct charge PMs. Our standard practice is to have all people who directly support a project (including PMs) charge direct to the contract that benefits from their efforts. Switching all PMs to indirect cost pools doesn't make financial or logical sense. Your second choice is viable, but unfair and unsound financially because the direct charge, but unbillable time would come straight from profit. Why should only this program absorb PM time out of profit? Your final comment pretty much makes my point for me. We do not want to treat this IDIQ contract different from our other contracts. We want to be consistent in how we charge PM time. We want to comply with FAR cost principles and cleanly pass DCAA audits. We do not think it is appropriate to charge the PM for this contract differently than every other PM on every other contract in the company. Yet the government is telling us we must charge the PM for this program to an indirect cost pool. I certainly appreciate your note that we are exempt from CAS. But, if any defense contractor deviates from normal business practices and standard direct / indirect charging rules - is an acceptable answer "well, that's the way the RFP / contract was written and the government forced us to charge our time differently?" Would DCAA accept that reason for being inconsistent if that was uncovered in an audit? Confused and frustrated...

We are a small business. We work hard to keep our indirect costs low in order to be competitive. Recently we have seen a number of RFPs in which there is no labor category for a Program or Project Manager. One Army IDIQ RFP specifically calls for bidders to provide a Program Manager with defined tasking. When we asked why “Program Manager” was not among the 53 labor categories defined in the RFP, the government's answer was: “It is expected that the Program Manager referenced in . . . will be a corporate position, chargeable to G&A/overhead." Is this appropriate? Why should all of our other clients pay for the Program Manager who supports this project (through increased indirect rates)? What recourse or alternative do bidders have to respond to situations like this where the requirements seem to be at odds with generally understood direct / indirect charging principles?