Jump to content

Neurotic

Members
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

2,975 profile views
  1. Thanks for the responses. My agency does not have an issue with reimbursing the contractor. The government created the requirement/conditions for the cost to happen. My original question goes to the treatment of the cost since the cost principles make this cost unallowable. The contractor (and at this point we don't see any other way) wants to include the tax differential cost in the profit of the T&M CLIN. I was asking if anyone had dealt with this type of cost and how they accounted/paid the contractor for it.
  2. Apologized for the delayed response. The government created the conditions (Pandemic) for extended TDY during performance. Extended TDY was never considered prior to award (2019). We are negotiating a follow on contract and the extended TDY conditions remain.
  3. Appreciate the responses. In a nutshell, the inclusion of these expenses in profit seem to be reasonable given the circumstances. I did not mention in the original post that my agency is not bound by any limitation in profit so it will just be a matter of getting to a reasonable/supported agreed upon profit rate/dollars. Thanks again.
  4. Good insight, will give some thought to the rotating option although additional personnel is unlikely. This is a highly specialized field. Thanks
  5. Agree. If we account for it as a cost it will be burdened with indirects and even profit. Thanks
  6. No, nor the vendor or the agency foresaw the extended TDY. The pandemic created the situation during contract performance. The original POP ended so the agency is negotiating a follow on contract (although first time through my desk). The conditions for extended TDY continue.
  7. Contractor meaning a large business enterprise. The rate (assume you meant profit) increase is to get compensated for the tax differential, basically circumvent cost principles to get reimbursed for the add cost.
  8. I'm assisting a CO with a sole source award as follows: -T&M contract with a 38- month POP (Base and Options). -Contractor employees will be on Extended TDY (Therefore IRS rules recognize all reimbursed expenses as taxable income). TDY is CONUS. -The contractor is seeking reimbursement of the these taxes. -Contract cost principles (Personal Compensation/Taxes (federal income)) seem to make these costs unallowable. Both the Gov and contractor agree on this. The contract includes the Cost Principles Clause. Contract is not CAS covered. -The contractor proposed to increase the profit within the fully burdened rate in the T&M Clin in order to recoup this tax differential associated with the travel expenses. -The contract includes a cost reimbursement non-fee bearing CLIN and an ODC which only includes employee completion bonuses, also non-fee bearing. -Relocation does not seem a likely option due to many uncertainties. I'm looking to see whether anyone has come across a similar situation and how they incorporated this type of cost into a contract. Tying anything (cost or Profit) to an indefinite quantity (hours) contract is likely not the best option business-wise. Any suggestions are welcomed as well. For what is worth, the Gov reimburses its own employees for this additional income tax. Thanks
  9. You may be right. I'm thinking about how would the vendor recover OH and G&A when wages are adjusted. Seems like based on the other responses they just don't.
  10. It could potentially be cost plus, but not percentage of cost, since the profit amount does not vary regardless.
  11. The SCA (Now SCLS) Price Adjustment clause provides for adjustment of wages and fringe and the accompanying increases or decreases in social security and unemployment taxes and workers' compensation insurance, but “must not otherwise include any amount for general and administrative costs, overhead, or profit.” G&A and OH is expected to be affected with the increase in wages. I presume the increase in wages will not absorb any OH but, at the same time, the OH might decrease because of the increase in direct labor, if the OH base is DL. The questions are: - How is the vendor supposed to account for any OH not being allocated to the increase in that contract? -Also, some Contracting Officers in our agency are allowing vendors to maintain the OH and G&A percentage unchanged (as originally proposed) when incorporating new WDs but naturally this way OH and G&A dollars will increase with an increase in wages. Is this the proper method to apply to manage the price adjustments under SCA? If not, what are other agencies managing the adjustments or what is the correct method if other. Assume the contract is FFP, the vendor does not perform in any cost type contracts and it’s small business so it’s not CAS covered.
  12. Thanks Joel. That's exactly the point in question. "From what I have been reading, unless the government intends to accept a price as bid, offered, proposed, etc. it would be premature to include the term “fair” as in “fair and reasonable” in a price analysis report. “Fair and reasonable” implies that it is acceptable to both parties. If you plan to negotiate, you don’t know if the other party will accept something other than what was offered." I agree with this statement. The cost/price analyst would not know if the proposed solution, for the proposed price, is fair to the government.
  13. That's our team's role, cost/price analysts (i.e. field support). We are not warranted, do not directly negotiate with offerors/contractors, and are not the award decision makers. We only get to analyze price or cost proposals. I agree that fairness is related to acceptability, so without consideration of other aspects of the proposal (i.e. value for the $) I do not agree with using the term "fair and reasonable" in a cost/price analysis report. That F&R determination cannot be based on price alone. We currently document findings and recommendations and determine reasonableness of a cost and/or price, based on analysis techniques. However, some COs seem to equate reasonableness (as indicated by cost or price analysts techniques) with fair and reasonable and occasionally some COs have even requested cost/price analysts to make the F&R statement in the cost/price report.
  14. Thank you all for the input. We may just be overthinking this a bit!
  15. Joel, thanks for your response. I'm not concerned about the grammar but they way they are used as a term of art. Having said that, I don't think a price analyst should use the term that a price is "Fair and Reasonable" in its report to the CO/KO. The price analysts cannot make this determination. So the question is, if the price analyst uses the term "reasonable price" or just "reasonable", do you believe would be the same as saying "Fair and Reasonable"? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...