here_2_help

Profit is not cost. Your cost estimate, whether for direct or indirect costs, should include your best guess as to the costs you will incur during contract performance. Nothing more; nothing less. Why did you bid a "best case" proposal instead of a "most probable case" proposal? Go back and review your estimated costs, both direct and indirect. Use a "best case" and a "worst case" scenario to develop a "most probable case" estimate. Be prepared to explain to the contracting officer how you arrived at your cost estimate. Once you have a solid cost estimate, add to it the profit you believe is reasonable. As others have noted, it is difficult to get a profit percentage greater than 15% of estimated costs, but it can be done with the right arguments.

There is not enough info here. What costs are you planning to incur? How does the LLC currently charge those costs? What is going to change -- if anything -- because you receive a new project? And, really, you have no W-2 employees? None? Not even the CEO or CFO?

There are a few cases (e.g., Martin Marietta) that discuss this issue. Fundamentally, when calculating an indirect cost rate, unallowable costs are subtracted from the cost pool but remain in the cost allocation base, so that unallowable costs receive their fair share of indirect costs. Overhead costs are part of all G&A allocation bases except for single element bases; thus Overhead is part of the G&A base for both TCI and Value-Added bases. If there are unallowable costs in the overhead pool, they stay in that pool when calculating the correct G&A allocation base; however when calculating the allowable Overhead indirect cost rate, the unallowable Overhead costs are removed from the Overhead pool. Emphasis added.

I saw that ... insanity

Follow-up question for my own edification. If neither entity had an existing Schedule contract and wanted to propose one, could the parent entity create LCAT rates that were based on an expected division of work between the parent and subsidiary entity, or must the parent entity propose LCAT rates that are based solely on its own fully burdened labor rates?

I am not particularly knowledgeable about GSA Schedule contracting. There are others on this site with more experience/knowledge than I have. I've been waiting for somebody else to weigh in.... I have read FAR 8.4 and visited the GSA website and reviewed the GSA Acquisition Supplement. It is not clear to me that GSA Schedule orders are subject to FAR Part 31 cost principles, or to CAS. Maybe they are, but I couldn't find it. Instead, everything I read pointed to GSA orders being for commercial products or services, to be ordered on a fixed-price or T&M basis. If I'm correct -- and I'm sure SOMEBODY will jump in if I'm wrong -- then 31.205-26 is not applicable and the affiliated parties are free to "subcontract" with each other on any reasonable basis. My answers: 1. The parent company and the subsidiary could map their rates together into an average that combines both. Or they could have separate LCATs, especially if the subsidiary has a particular expertise. 2. If 31.205-26 is not applicable, then yes, the subsidiary could map its fully burdened, with fee added, labor rates. Even if 31.205-26 did apply, the subsidiary could do so if it met the conditions of 31.205-26(e) and (f). If desired, the two entities could "split" a single earned profit in accordance with an internal budgetary agreement. 3. That's an interesting question to which I do not know the answer. Hope this helps.

Yep. Plus the prime always had the ability to request a DCAA assist audit but the prime's buyer was asleep at the switch.

I treat subcontracts to government prime contractors as being government contracts, not commercial contracts. Yes, such contracts are generally subject to the UCC if there is a dispute between the parties; however, the government generally has audit rights as conferred by subcontract terms and conditions (particularly if the subcontract is other than FFP). Chances are your prime contractor has listed your subcontract in its own Schedule J so that the auditors can initiate assist audits if they elect to do so. Because the government generally has audit rights that it may exercise, I treat the subcontract as being governmental.

No, you cannot perform work -- or have subcontractors perform work -- in support of a FFP TO and charge that work to overhead. That is cost shifting and is frowned upon. If the work benefits a single TO then it needs to be charged to the TO.

If I have a subcontractor who is able to charge multiple cost objectives -- i.e., different projects with different Ts&Cs -- I would want to have a separate agreement for each project. That is to make sure the various prime contract clauses flow down correctly. This is also to make sure costs get to the correct project. However, if the subcontractor can charge multiple projects, then maybe the agreement needs to be 100% indirect. (See the FAR discussion of "indirect costs"). If the agreement is charged solely to indirect cost objectives -- i.e., overhead or G&A -- then I agree that no prime contract terms will flow down. I disagree that "no FAR provisions will apply" because some of those FAR Ts & Cs apply to indirect costs not just direct costs. Hope this helps.

The only thing the prime should need is assurance that the subK's accounting system is approved. Typically a copy of the determination of adequacy is all that is necessary. If the prime wants more then the prime either knows something about the subK's timekeeping system that the government does not know ... or the prime is clueless.

Most primes with USG prime contracts develop their "own" clauses by using FAR/DFARS clauses and replacing "contracting officer" with "buyer" and "Government" with "buyer" or "company". Most primes are not motivated to tailor clauses or to develop their own set of local clauses. Most primes do not train their buyers in the nuances of clause application. Note the considered use of the word "most" in the above generalization.

This was a rhetorical question, correct?

I would review the proposed subcontract language de novo, without regard to whether the clause is in the prime or if it is a mandatory flowdown. Identify the clauses that drive risk or other concerns. Then look those clauses up in the FAR Smart Matrix to see when they would be required to be in a prime contract. Review the clause language to see if a flowdown is required. Then negotiate.

(Emphasis added; internal citations omitted.) Based on the above, I'm hard-pressed to imagine how one might evaluate offerors. I guess based on general AI expertise? It seems to me that CBP is looking to hire a guide or two to lead it down the path of implementing AI. Track 1 will augment existing agency resources to manage the contractor(s) who execute Track 2, I guess. But the nature of the awards means that work will be handled on an individual order basis. The Track 1 contractors will have difficulty establishing long-term partnerships with the CBP staff because of the nature of how the work is managed. The Track 2 contractors will have difficulty seeing the bigger picture because of the nature of how the work is awarded. Conclusion: The agency would have been better off awarding one long term Track 1 contract on a CPFF basis and one or more Track 2 contracts to selected AI experts with a proven track record of deploying AI. The Track 2 contracts should have specific requirements in mind. You could even go CPIF with the incentive fee tied to quantitative or qualitative performance enhancement in Track 2. BPAs with pools of contractors and individual orders was not the way to go, in my view.