here_2_help

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.

Wow. A lot of words to say, "Sure, the government made some mistakes in evaluation. But the mistakes weren't prejudicial. Denied."

It is not mandatory to have a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA). Oftentimes they are more trouble than they are worth. The contractor should propose its best estimate of future indirect rates to be incurred during contract performance and be prepared to support its estimate during a proposal fact-finding or audit just like any other estimate. That said, normally DCAA likes to see detailed budgets for the upcoming year with outyear adjustments based on known events/trends, such as award of large contracts. If you read 52.217-6, it is clear that the provisional billing rates should be the contractor's expected actual rates, and that the billing rates should be adjusted as necessary (either prospectively or retroactively) to prevent any significant under or over billings. In my experience, a NICRA covers audited, negotiated rates. It is the document that establishes final billing rates, not provisional or interim billing rates. To be clear, I'm not saying that a NICRA cannot be used to establish provisional billing rates; I just haven't experienced that scenario. There is another set of rates, which is what the contractor uses to establish contract costs during performance, prior to receiving audited/negotiated final rates. Those rates may be linked to an FPRA or a NICRA, or they can be the contractor's best estimate of actual indirect cost rates to be incurred during the current year. Note that these rates are not subject to government approval, but they are critical because they help establish contract Estimates at Completion and thus drive tracking of costs incurred against funds provided. So ... there can be overlap between actual rates, billing rates, and forward pricing rates--especially for the current or upcoming year. A contractor with cost-type contracts should understand where the sets of rates overlap and where they differ. That contractor should be monitoring variances and proposing adjustments to provisional billing rates as required by 52.216-7. That contractor should be updating its (internal) forward pricing rates based on what it sees in the future, especially if those same rates are also used to estimate fixed-priced contracts. Frankly--and without meaning to condescend--understanding the interaction of indirect rates between actual, provisional, final, and forward pricing is fundamental to managing cost-type work, regardless of whether you are on the contractor or government side. I'm frequently surprised how many people--especially those in contracts--don't understand the interplay. I strongly recommend a thorough read of 52.216-7 for any individual who wants to better understand billing rates. For forward pricing rates, see Table 15-2.

I also own an S-Corp. I don't need any Form 1099's. They are not required for an S-Corp. If you do your bookkeeping, it is not hard to figure out your corporate income. For me, it is basically all funds I deposit into my business checking account. I have a spreadsheet that I update about every 60 days that helps me to track income and expenses. I don't even use accounting software. In summary, your clients aren't required to provide you with a 1099, nor should you need one to accurately report income and file tax returns.