Find content
My DCAA "friends" tell me that I have to list my fixed-price incentive contracts in my annual proposal to establish final billing rates ("incurred cost submission") because those types are considered to be "flexibly priced" contracts (see Part 30 Definitions). I disagree, because my reading of FAR Part 16 says such contracts don't include the 52.216-7 (Allowable Cost and Payment) clause--or, at least, that clause is not mandatory for that contract type.
I tried to use the Clause Matrix to bolster my position, but I don't see FP Incentive as a column (which may be because I don't understand how to read the Matrix).
Because I don't (necessarily) find the 52.216-7 clause in my FPIF contracts, I don't have to list them, says I. Because the price isn't determined until costs are known, and indirect rates aren't known until claimed and audited and negotiated, I have to list them, says the auditors.
Who's right?
Thanks for the help.
- The Wifcon Forum And Blogs
- → Viewing Profile: Topics: here_2_help
|
|
|
|
here_2_help
Member Since 07 Dec 2008Offline Last Active May 23 2013 07:35 PM
About Me
25 years of doing some of mostly everything in Government contracting, including cost accounting, internal audit, rates/factors calculations, audit liaison, Government property control, socioeconomic reporting, control system adequacy, etc. Also some procurement, subcontract management and prime contract administration. Won my company an award for a successful Mentor-Protege program; received an "Outstanding" rating from the SBA for socioeconomic reporting. Also some project management under a CPAF task order for the Navy (but don't tell anyone). In recent years, tried to implement Lean into supply chain management, program management, and contract administration, with mixed success.
I have never worked for the U.S. Government as an employee and I have never been an employee of the DCAA. I have been a paid consultant, however, for an Independent Federal Commission, where I provided advice and assistance regarding timekeeping, labor charging and cost accounting matters. My assistance led to a clean audit opinion on the Commission's financial statements.
For a decade I was a consultant, working in the "Big 4" world of professional accountancy. My specialty was government contract cost accounting and all aspects of sucessfully selling to the Federal government. My clients were in diverse industries, including bio-defense (Project Bioshield vaccine development), environmental remediation, engineering/construction, and traditional aerospace/defense. Selected projects included: T4C's, resolution of CAS noncompliances, DOD Voluntary Disclosure program forensic accounting analysis, expert testimony. I also supported internal and external audits of government contractors, including acting as a "Subject Matter Expert" with respect to Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 internal control system adequacy and revenue recognition under SOP 81-1.
I am currently employed by one of the Top 5 Defense contractors, in a $4 billion business segment. I handle government accounting, cost accounting, and DCAA/DCMA liaison.
I have started my own consulting shop where I support a select group of small and mid-size contractors--where doing so doesn't create a conflict with my full-time employer. It's going fairly well as this point!
I have never worked for the U.S. Government as an employee and I have never been an employee of the DCAA. I have been a paid consultant, however, for an Independent Federal Commission, where I provided advice and assistance regarding timekeeping, labor charging and cost accounting matters. My assistance led to a clean audit opinion on the Commission's financial statements.
For a decade I was a consultant, working in the "Big 4" world of professional accountancy. My specialty was government contract cost accounting and all aspects of sucessfully selling to the Federal government. My clients were in diverse industries, including bio-defense (Project Bioshield vaccine development), environmental remediation, engineering/construction, and traditional aerospace/defense. Selected projects included: T4C's, resolution of CAS noncompliances, DOD Voluntary Disclosure program forensic accounting analysis, expert testimony. I also supported internal and external audits of government contractors, including acting as a "Subject Matter Expert" with respect to Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 internal control system adequacy and revenue recognition under SOP 81-1.
I am currently employed by one of the Top 5 Defense contractors, in a $4 billion business segment. I handle government accounting, cost accounting, and DCAA/DCMA liaison.
I have started my own consulting shop where I support a select group of small and mid-size contractors--where doing so doesn't create a conflict with my full-time employer. It's going fairly well as this point!
Community Stats
- Group Members
- Active Posts 567
- Profile Views 7,094
- Member Title Gold Member
- Age 52 years old
- Birthday December 17, 1960
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
California
-
Interests
Reading, writing, wine-drinking, watching my two boys grow up. Rock-and-roll, jazz, stage plays and musicals. TV and films, but not video games. Philosophy, politics and religion, but not political or religious organizations.
0
Neutral
Friends
here_2_help hasn't added any friends yet.
Latest Visitors
-
-
Guest
21 Feb 2013 - 10:24 -
-
-
Topics I've Started
Reporting Fixed-Priced Incentive Contracts
13 March 2013 - 09:10 AM
Documenting the Competitive Range Determination
15 November 2012 - 01:38 PM
“In response to comments from agency counsel that the PCO’s proposed Competitive Range Determination (the ‘CRD’), which eliminated HBDC, was unsatisfactory, the PCO stated that she was not qualified to write it.”
http://www.uscfc.usc...IERRA110112.pdf
http://www.uscfc.usc...IERRA110112.pdf
SCOTUS Clarifies "Subject to the Availabilty of Appropriations"
22 June 2012 - 10:33 AM
The attorneys at McKenna Long & Aldridge just issued a newsflash discussing the SCOTUS decision in Salazar v. Ramah.
Opinion here: http://www.supremeco...1pdf/11-551.pdf
The MLA attorneys wrote (in part)--
Arguably the most significant aspect of the Ramah decision is the court’s interpretation of the phrase 'subject to the availability of appropriations' in these contracts. Government contracts lawyers have long held the view that this language simply established a condition precedent that a government contract cannot be awarded until sufficient funds had been appropriated and obligated. That interpretation is made very clear by the terms of FAR Part 31, Subpart 7. Once this condition precedent had been satisfied and the contract awarded, the phrase had no further legal import. By contrast, the government argued for a different interpretation of this language in Ramah. In the government’s view, this language meant that the Department’s liability could be reduced in each contract—after contract award—as the funds in the appropriation were obligated for other permissible purposes (e.g. in this case, additional service contracts with other tribes.) See id at 9. The court explicitly rejected the government’s argument and confirmed the previous interpretation of this phrase. See id at 10.
I have to confess that I don't understand the reference to FAR 31.7, but I thought this was worth sharing regardless. Hope others think so, as well.
H2H
Opinion here: http://www.supremeco...1pdf/11-551.pdf
The MLA attorneys wrote (in part)--
Arguably the most significant aspect of the Ramah decision is the court’s interpretation of the phrase 'subject to the availability of appropriations' in these contracts. Government contracts lawyers have long held the view that this language simply established a condition precedent that a government contract cannot be awarded until sufficient funds had been appropriated and obligated. That interpretation is made very clear by the terms of FAR Part 31, Subpart 7. Once this condition precedent had been satisfied and the contract awarded, the phrase had no further legal import. By contrast, the government argued for a different interpretation of this language in Ramah. In the government’s view, this language meant that the Department’s liability could be reduced in each contract—after contract award—as the funds in the appropriation were obligated for other permissible purposes (e.g. in this case, additional service contracts with other tribes.) See id at 9. The court explicitly rejected the government’s argument and confirmed the previous interpretation of this phrase. See id at 10.
I have to confess that I don't understand the reference to FAR 31.7, but I thought this was worth sharing regardless. Hope others think so, as well.
H2H
- The Wifcon Forum And Blogs
- → Viewing Profile: Topics: here_2_help
- Privacy Policy
