joel hoffman

Is the QA function required to be full-time when work is being performed and is the work being performed on-site or off-site? Edit: One point is that, regardless of the limitations of the contract language, if the employee’s full cost of salary and fringes, etc. is being charged directly to the FFP portion of the contract in the company’s accounting system, there is no extra COST to the company for performing the cost reimbursable tasks. Then the company is double charging…

*Does the contract require full time quality assurance? What is the role of a quality assurance test manager? I don’t believe that the contractor incurred any additional cost for the person who performed the additional tasks, assuming that you have verified who performed the task and that the tasks were performed during normal duty hours. You have the right to find out who performed the tasks. The contractor proposed and is essentially charging you in the FFP contract price for a full time employee. Is that correct? Now the contractor is charging you again for some of that same person’s time. That is double charging in my opinion. Under cost reimbursement, the contractor has to be able to show that it incurred a cost to perform the task. I don’t think that the contractor can prove that there is any additional cost incurred to perform those reimbursable tasks if it is already paying the person and charging it to the contract in its accounting system. Is the person an hourly or salaried employee? If salaried, it (probably?) already incurred a cost to the contract that it supposedly included in the contract price. Did you say whether the employee is working full or part time on the job? Is this an on-site or off-site employee? I may have missed that For a cost reimbursement CLIN, It is the contractor’s responsibility to justify the additional cost to the contract to be reimbursed. You didn’t say that it is a time and material CLIN. I didn’t see where you or the COR/KO required the contractor to or where the contractor substantiated the additional cost to be reimbursed.

The “agency” includes the KO, too. There is an acquisition team.

Covey’s “Begin with the end in mind” is a great Habit for “Highly Effective People”. It was a life changing training course for me. I highly recommend everyone attend “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, especially here for acquisition personnel and negotiators.

Vern, I never said that the writing is effective or isn’t crappy. Old habits don’t seem to go away. “That’s the way we’ve always done it here” is the norm. I was responding to your musing about whether it should more properly be called “Findings and Determination” when the FAR format for a D&F requires the findings first then the determination. i told you “why [I referred to] the Army writing guide”, not the Air Force, GPO or Navy guides. I worked for the Army for 35 years and learned about the “New Army Writing Style” in 1988, about four years after the Reg had been published. It was an eye opener for me at the time but completely foreign to the standard writing style then and now. Do you disagree with the Army’s defined “essential writing style” of “bottom line upfront” (BLUFF)? Ive noticed that some of the recent legal decisions state the high level outcome up front before going into all the details and findings. Other decisions seem to lumber on with the details then finally describe the bottom line. And writing in the passive voice drives me crazy. I edited numerous regulations and guides during my last decade with the USACE. I gradually revised all versions of the USACE Model RFP used for the $50 billion Army Transformation construction program from 2006-2013, as a member of the Program Management Team, to convert passive voice to the active voice. Also removed most of “the contractor shall” and “by the contractor”, excess wording. I’m sure that later revisions and additions likely reverted to the passive voice.

A Determination and Findings (D&F) should not be renamed Findings and Determination (F&D). Unfortunately, The current FAR D&F format is backwards from the title and should be reversed. As Stephen R. Covey said in Habit 2 of his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People® , “Begin With The End In Mind”. From Army Regulation (AR) 25-50 , “Section IV Effective Writing and Correspondence. The Army Writing Style.” Paragraph 1-38 is “Army Standards for Writing” Besides writing in the Active Voice, the other essential writing requirement is to put the main point at the beginning of correspondence*. “Bottom Line Up Front” (BLUF). The current FAR format for a Determination and Findings at 1.704 Content places the findings at (d) before the determination at (e). See below. In my opinion, this format should be revised so that the determination is first at (d), followed by the specific, supporting findings at (e). Current wording at 1.704: ”(d) Findings that detail the particular circumstances, facts, or reasoning essential to support the determination. Necessary supporting documentation shall be obtained from appropriate requirements and technical personnel. (e) A determination, based on the findings, that the proposed action is justified under the applicable statute or regulation.” Reversing this order would make the format consistent with the title as well as the current Army writing style. Footnote: I don’t claim to be a particularly effective writer. However, our Kaiserslautern, Germany Army Corps of Engineers Area Office Commander, a Lt. Colonel, made all AO employees take an Effective Army Writing Class in 1998. A majority of our AO staff were German National engineers and support personnel with English as a second language. To put it mildly, their English writing needed much editing to finalize… I do give them MUCH credit for learning our language, especially given the different grammar structures. The Colonel said he didn’t want to single out the German’s, so he mandated that everyone take the class. The class was based upon the 1984 update of AR-50. Section IV was entitled, “Effective Writing and Correspondence. The New Army Writing Style.” It was a great class for me, in particular the two essential writing requirements (use the Active Voice and BLUF). I had been in the Air Force for nine years and in the Corps of Engineers for eight years at the time. Neither of those two essential styles was the norm in the Air Force or the Army Corps of Engineers. *A memorandum is one of the specific forms of correspondence described in AR 25-50.

I have never heard of a “unilateral agreement”. An agreement consists of concurrence by the contract parties concerning some matter. Do you mean a unilateral decision by the government to determine entitlement to an excusable delay and establish or deny a time extension?

How is a contract or task order when acquiring products or services priced as cost reimbursement or cost reimbursement with fixed fee a FAR commercial product/service contract? ” 12.207 Contract type. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, agencies shall use firm-fixed-price contracts or fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.” (b) (1) A time-and-materials contract or labor-hour contract (see subpart 16.6) may be used for the acquisition of commercial services when…”

Who was the scholar and what is the source ? Did I miss it?

Way to go, Carl. Putting this in perspective, is the government worse than the myriads of ridiculous terms and conditions imposed every day by businesses. What I think is especially ridiculous are all the exceptions written into the warranties, etc. that you can’t read until you buy the product and open the package…

@formerfed, is this the article:

Did you mean to say something, formerfed? 🤠

LOML has disengaged from the thread after 3 September, leavingw many responders’ questions unanswered and much speculation. I suggest we not waste any more time continuing to respond…

Please clarify. What does “below the market that is offered by the owner” mean? Are you saying that the lease price is below the market price and is reasonable in amount? Please clarify. Are you saying that it would be included in the G&A pool and that it “is” (already)(?) or did you mean “ it will be”(?) the “main office” of the contractor? Where is the firm’s “main office”now? Does the “main office” serve the contractor’s other contracts too (I.e., the total cost denominator for G&A includes the total cost of company sales or similar designation)? Just need to understand the full context of the scenario. Thanks.