Jump to content


Member Since 07 Dec 2008
Offline Last Active Today, 05:37 PM

Topics I've Started

New Contract Type

08 April 2015 - 09:44 AM

Admittedly I'm not the smartest -- and certainly not the most experienced -- contracts guy. I did that gig for a few years before I decided I liked the cost accounting and compliance side of the house better.


Anyway in yesterday's DoD Contract Award notification (available at www.defense.gov) I saw the following notification:


[Midwest Defense Contractor] was awarded a $494,999,925 ORDER DEPENDENT CONTRACT for software and system development and integration onto the CH-47, MH-47, MH-6, MH/UH/HH/VH-60, VH-3, MH-65 and all their variants, including potential foreign military sales requirements. Funding and work location will be determined with each order with an estimated completion date of April 2020. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-15-D-0016).


(CAPS added for emphasis.)


Maybe I'm behind the times, but what kind of contract is that? Funding to be determined with each order but the total contract value was extremely specific. How does that work? How would you estimate that? How would you bill start-up costs or sustaining or PM until you had an order in hand?


It's not an ID/IQ (because I think they would have said so if it were) and it's not a BOA (because it's a contract) and I don't see how it can be a requirements contract (because it's development), so what is this thing?


Inquiring minds want to know.





Cost/Price Analysis on FFP Options

13 November 2014 - 11:02 AM

I noticed that the DFARS has been revised and, in concert with PGI, now mandates that cost/price analysis must be performed on FFP options for spares before the option is exercised.


This is not my forte, so please excuse the dumb questions.


I'm not understanding the separate analysis before exercising an option. Wouldn't the option have been evaluated as part of the initial contract award? Why are FFP options for spares being treated differently from, say, cost-type options for services?


Thanks for your patience.



Who's Incompetent - DCMA ACOs or DoD OIG Auditors?

12 October 2014 - 06:02 PM

I just finished reading the DoDOIG audit report criticizing DCMA ACOs for failing to use cost analysis to evaluate contractor FPRPs, for failing to tailor requests for field pricing assistance so that DCAA could issue audit reports in time to meet agency-imposed deadlines, and for failing to properly document their files.




I'm finding a couple of fundamental flaws in the IG's logic about the application of FAR Part 15 to contractor FPRPs. Anybody else see what I see?





Closing Out a FPIF (Firm Target) Contract

06 August 2014 - 07:53 AM

Here's a hypothetical.


Contractor A is a small firm (but NOT a small business) with all FFP contracts except for one FPIF (Firm Target) contract. Work is complete on that FPIF contract, and the parties want to negotiate the final price and close the contract. However, the CO says the contract cannot be closed because the contractor does not have final billing rates. The CO cites to 42.703-1©(2), which states, "Established final indirect cost rates shall be used in negotiating the final price of fixed-price incentive and fixed-price redeterminable contracts and in other situations requiring that indirect costs be settled before contract prices are established, unless the quick-closeout procedure in 42.708 is used."


The contractor tells the CO that's not going to happen. No proposal to establish final billing rates, no DCAA audit of same, no way. It would be prohibitively expensive. The CO tells the contractor that the Allowable Cost and Payment Clause (52.216-7) requires submission. The contractor tells the CO that the clause can't be found in the contract. Indeed, upon checking the CO determines that 52.216-7 is not required to be included in FPIF contracts.


The contractor states that if the CO requires submission of a 52.216-7 compliant final billing rate proposal and expects the contractor to support a DCAA audit of that proposal and to negotiate final billing rates, then all associated costs will be direct costs of the requiring contract (since no other contract requires submission and, but for this contract, the contractor would not have submitted a final billing rate proposal). Further, the contractor states that it will submit an REA seeking to adjust target costs and incentive fees for the estimated costs of the effort, which will be significant in relation to the original contract price. The contractor believes it had no reason to negotiate costs for such an effort in the FPIF contract, since the contract did not require it and the FAR only applies to the extent incorporated into the contract.


In this hypothetical it seems to me that the contractor was not required to submit a final rate proposal but the FAR contemplates that one will be submitted. Both parties are stuck but it's not adversarial; both parties want to resolve this issue quickly.


Thoughts/suggestions please?




Also please assume for this hypothetical that quick-close rates cannot be negotiated.