Retreadfed

21 hours ago, RJ_Walther said:

if the Government maybe just doesn't need the widgets until 12 months from now and then will only need 250 per month thereafter (which would seem to make it a need for future fiscal years). 

Maybe maybe not.  The issue is when does the need arise not when it will be met.  In any event, we don't know what Birdsong's concern is with the order crossing 2 fiscal years.  It might be a valid concern or it might not.  We just don't know.

2 hours ago, Voyager said:

I'm not arguing - I'm inquiring.  I'd like to know your answers to my questions.

Your "questions" were directed toward H2H.  Maybe he knows what you are asking, but I don't, because I don't see a question.  You wrote "what if" and "or say" then set out facts, but don't say what the question is.  Can you rephrase your questions?

Voyager, what is your point?  Are you arguing that profit is a cost of a contractor?

43 minutes ago, Atlas STS said:

However, learning that TINA also mandates the weighted guidelines method and limits profit to 10-15% at the end of this process was not a fun surprise!

That is not a true statement.  The Truthful Cost or Pricing Data statute (10 U.S.C. 3701 et seq. for DoD) only requires contracting officers to obtain current, complete and accurate cost or pricing data from contractors.  It says nothing of weighted guidelines or limits on profit. 

15 hours ago, Birdsong said:

Am I correct, that the funding will need to be good until the last delivery is made?

What do you mean by "good" in this statement?  If you are using appropriated funds, they must be obligated within their period of availability for obligation.  Once obligated, they remain available for expenditure until five years after the period of availability for obligation expires.  

15 hours ago, Birdsong said:

My concern is the order crosses 2 fiscal years. 

Why are you concerned if the order is for supplies?  

What is the TO for (supplies, services, etc.) and what is the period of availability for obligation of the funds used for the TO?

28 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

The Weighted Guidelines method is required in some instances for the Government to arrive at a prenegotiation objective, but it does not limit what a prospective contractor can propose.

Nor does it limit the government in what it can agree to.  As Don pointed out, the weighted guidelines are supposed to be used to establish a negotiation position, not a limit on profit.

2 hours ago, Deathdealer said:

I have a question...

"unallowable base costs are to be included in the base for calculation of indirect cost rates."-This is so the receive their share of the pool costs, correct?

Incorrect.  Unallowable base costs are to be allocated to cost objectives (contracts) although they may not be recoverable on those contracts.  Despite what FAR 31.203(d) states, indirect costs are allocated to contracts, not base costs, based on the amount of base costs allocated to those contracts.  See, Rice v. Martin Marietta, 13 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1993) for a discussion of how 31.203(d) works.

3 hours ago, Deathdealer said:

"if overhead is a part of the G&A base"-This would be the case in a TCI base, correct?

Yes, but that is not the only G&A base where that would be true.

3 hours ago, Deathdealer said:

"However, unallowable overhead costs are to be excluded from the overhead pool for calculation of the overhead rate."-This is so direct projects do not receive a portion of the unallowable costs.

I don't know what you mean by "direct projects."  Despite being unallowable, unallowable costs are allocated to contracts.  See FAR 32.202-1, 201-6 and CAS 405.  The reason for excluding unallowable pool costs from an indirect cost pool is to ensure that unallowable costs are not billed to the government on contracts subject to the cost principles and/or CAS 405.  

2 hours ago, Deathdealer said:

"unallowable overhead costs are to be included in the overhead pool for calculation of the G&A rate"-This has me confused. 

This may be poorly worded.  Perhaps a better statement would be that unallowable overhead costs are to be included in the G&A base for calculation of the G&A rate.

On 4/15/2024 at 4:39 PM, EGovCon said:

We have recently graduated from a small business to a large business and a modification was completed to our GSA schedule to include a small business subcontracting plan. 

I don't understand your situation.  You state that you "graduated" to a large business.  Were you an 8(a) participant that graduated from that program?  Is FAR 52.219-28 in your contract?  If it is, were you required by the terms of that clause to recertify your size status?  If you were, what was the basis of the recertification?  Was the requirement to submit a subcontracting plan accomplished by including FAR 52.219-9 in your contract?  Was the effective date of the modification requiring a plan the effective date of your contract or some later date?

29 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Remember when some people insisted that a T&M contract was a kind of cost-reimbursement contract.

You mean like Eleanor Spector in her guidance on prompt payment?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Maybe DCAA has a different definition of "allowable".

Having worked for DCAA for 15 years I can tell you that it is a very inward looking agency.  Unless things have changed drastically, it refuses to allow its auditors to receive procurement training from anyone outside DCAA.  Thus, DCAA perpetuates its own views of procurement policy, including interpretations of the FAR.  In this regard, 52.232-16 never uses the term allowable, neither does the SF 1442 nor the instructions for that form.  Instead, the 1442 and its instructions use the term "eligible."

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Presumably, the contractor will want some kind of revenue flow during performance unless its is willing to provide its own financing. So it seeks progress payments based on costs, which will be anchored to the Government's maximum liability. See 52.232-16.

Thanks for the response.  This is what I was thinking would be the situation.  It was the use of the word "allowable" that had me spun up since to me, allowable denotes application of the cost principles in FAR Part 31 while 52.232-16 does not incorporate the cost principles.

20 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The contractor works pending price agreement and will be entitled to compensation for allowable costs incurrred until the parties reach final price agreement. 

Vern, I'm confused by this statement.  Can you clarify it for me.  Are you saying that as work progresses on the UCA, that the contractor can bill the government for its incurred allowable costs?  I see that if FAR 52.216-26 is in the UCA, however, if the definitized contract is anticipated to be FFP, 52.216-26 should not be in the UCA.

On 3/30/2024 at 1:38 PM, formerfed said:

Except many government payment systems won’t allow invoice payments exceeding the CLIN amount.

Why have we allowed ancillary systems to be designed so they cause more work for contracting officers that may not be necessary or consistent with contract terms?

14 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

To pay for the overrun. 

Birdsong did not say the contract is being overrun.  If that were the case a realignment would not be necessary.  Just because a CLIN is being overrun does not automatically mean there has to be a realignment of funds to fund that overrun.

18 hours ago, Birdsong said:

CPFF CLIN is under run on one CLIN and over run on another, so need to realign funding,

Why?

2 hours ago, here_2_help said:

Note the considered use of the word "most" in the above generalization.

To add to the generalization, in my experience, it is the larger contractors that have their own subcontract clauses.  Many of these clauses are derivations of FAR or FAR supplement clauses.  Some times these variations go further than the tweaks H2H described.  At the same time, some of the clauses are FAR clauses with only those tweaks.  Medium sized contractors and small businesses have a tendency to merely incorporate clauses from the prime contract without thinking as to whether the clause is applicable to the subcontractor or whether the "clause" is even a clause and not a solicitation provision.  

8 hours ago, Benny Lava said:

The inquiry I have received is whether there are any restrictions to hiring non-US citizens doing work in foreign countries pursuant to federal contracts.

I think you also need to look at the reverse of this question.  The US has Status of Forces Agreements with several countries.  Some of these SOFAs contain provisions about hiring local nationals to work on US government contracts that are performed in the host country.

11 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Why would these be FAR/DFARS clauses? Why wouldn't the prime use its own payment clause?

The operative word in my post was "may."  But in regard to your question, while some contractors develop their own subcontract clauses, many use FAR or agency supplement clauses for subcontracts.  This is because they do not see any reason to reinvent the wheel when a clause already exists that they can use.

If this is a subcontract under a DoD prime contract, the prime contract likely contains DFARS 252.244-7001(c) states in part that an acceptable purchasing system shall "Ensure that all applicable purchase orders and subcontracts contain all flowdown clauses, including terms and conditions and any other clauses needed to carry out the requirements of the prime contract."  IAW this clause the prime contractor is required to flow down clauses that by their express terms require them to be included in specified subcontracts.  In addition, the prime is required to include clauses in the subcontract that are necessary for the prime contractor to carry out its obligations under the prime contract.  That means that there may be FAR/DFARS clauses in the subcontract that are not included in the prime contract.  For example, if the prime contract is a cost reimbursement contract but the subcontract is a firm fixed price contract, there may be several clauses in the subcontract, such as a payments clause, that are not in the prime contract.  In my opinion, if a prime contractor merely includes all FAR clauses from the prime contract in all subcontracts that is an example of professional laziness.

Thanks, Carl

On 3/21/2024 at 2:35 PM, ji20874 said:

The Logan decision

What is the Logan decision?

1 hour ago, It_Depends said:

But the funds certifiers will not certify the funds because of the higher guidance and because they say it violates CR which limits funding within the CR timeline.

Have you read the CR to see what it says about obligation of funds, if anything?

19 hours ago, KelliB said:

How do you descope for CPFF Clins if the govt no longer needs the requirements?

What do you mean by "descope"?

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Productive hour means an hour of physical or mental activity devoted to the achievement of the principal contract objective as described in the contract work statement, excluding all administrative and clerical support such as purchasing and document preparation.

That might work in some circumstances.  I suspect that the definition of "productive hour" would vary from contract to contract.  For example, I once worked with a contractor that had a contract to answer correspondence and prepare speeches for the Office of the Secretary of the Navy.  Document preparation would definitely be considered a productive hour under that contract.  A dispute arose under that contract concerning what the contractor was entitled to be paid and the Navy at first said the contract was a LOE contract but ultimately backed off that position and agreed with the contractor concerning payment.