rsmith

24 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

What you are describing is commonly called "Extended Work Week" and, in accordance with your HR Policy regarding EWW (assuming you have one), exempt salaried employees that work approved EWW may be paid for hours in excess of 40 at straight-time rates. The contract clauses cited do not prohibit doing so, since no premium pay is involved.

Have at it.

Thank you! that's very helpful. 

The contract says any OT premium above $0 has to be approved. Originally my thought was that premium represented the portion above straight time, but reading through it again I can see how any OT pay, even straight time could be considered premium. 

1 minute ago, ji20874 said:

Does your existing disclosure statement cover your situation?  

Just that O/T premium is direct, however in this case we wouldn't pay a premium, just straight time. 

37 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

How about uncompensated overtime?  That’s legal.

A cost-reimbursement contractor should have a disclosure statement that explains how it treats costs.  Its treatment of overtime pay for exempt employees should not vary from contract to contract.

We have plenty of uncompensated overtime that's properly accounted for. However, this is a special case of an unexpected surge in workload where people that typically don't work much uncompensated O/T are going to be required to work extra hours and we would like to compensate them for it. 

I've read the regulations and DCAA's CAM regarding overtime, but most of it refers to premium pay.

On a cost type contract, is there an issue with paying exempt employees straight time overtime? These are salaried employees that typically work 40-45 hours a week, however for a few weeks they'll have to work 50-60 due to a surge in activity and some people leaving the department. 

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

The consumables might be of low visibility.  The stuff to become gov't property might be more prominent and could be returned and replaced if someone made a big deal out of it...It is helpful that you are addressing the issue for future purchases.

Thank you for the insight. It's going to be fixed going forward. For ICS purposes I think it can be claimed and we'll just have to see what happens if DCAA questions it. 

2 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Were the materials and supplies directly furnished to the government or were they consumed during contract performance?

A mixture of both. The majority were consumed during contract performance, however some such as furniture(that was purchased for use at space  provided at a gov't site) would become property of the government once the contract ends or if another contractor is selected for future year. 

Just now, joel hoffman said:

The government could possibly deny payment for non-compliance with the contract, I suppose. Yes, the DCAA could question such costs, if they are aware of non-compliance.. Are they significant costs?

I am having someone go through all of the purchases to determine what the risk is. It's a tedious process because you have to search the AbilityOne catalog. I can't imagine it being over $50,000 though. 

1 minute ago, Retreadfed said:

What contract clause?

What I pasted is the exact clause in the contract and was in the RFP. 

Supplies and services identified on the AbilityOne Procurement List must be purchased from AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies unless a written exemption is granted by the Contracting Officer.
The Procurement List may be accessed at: http://www.abilityone.gov/.

Thank you for your reply. 

It is a CPFF contract. A certificate was not submitted for the year I am preparing the incurred cost for because it was competitive. The proposal did not take into account the mandatory source of supply and materials were proposed based on quotes from other vendors. 

There are no critical parts involved, most of the items that should have been purchased from AbilityOne are office supplies, some office furniture such as chairs and mats, toner cartridges, and cleaning supplies. Yes, these are typically overhead but are direct on this contract. 

I'm preparing an incurred cost for a client and when briefing the contract, noticed the following clause: 

Supplies and services identified on the AbilityOne Procurement List must be purchased from AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies unless a written exemption is granted by the Contracting Officer.
The Procurement List may be accessed at: http://www.abilityone.gov/.

When I glanced through the material purchases, there were plenty that are available through AbilityOne. Does anyone know whether there are any penalties for not complying with this contract clause? Could DCAA question any material that should have been purchased through them? I have not seen this before. 

Of course I'm having the process fixed going forward but I'm not sure how much risk they have for the prior year and a couple of months of this year. 

Thank you.