Mary D

Scenario is as follows: Prime Contractor has FFP Contract with the Government. Wants to award T&M Contract to Subcontractor. Questions regarding a T&M Subcontract: Does the subcontractor have to submit ICE Report? Research shows the answer is yes since the source of prime's funding is the Government. Since the subcontractor has to submit ICE report, is there a similar rate adjustment for the labor rates and overhead after the ICE audit? For example, I know that under CPFF, if an ICE Report audit shows that overhead was either greater or lesser than the amount billed, then the prime contractor is either owed the difference by the government or owes the government the difference. When it's a subcontractor under a T&M, after an ICE report audit, is there a similar true-up? What is reviewed and adjusted? Since any true-up is between the prime and sub, doesn't that have to be negotiated? It's not the same as between a prime and the government. Is the Prime obligated to get a refund from the subcontractor if rates experienced are lower than rates bid due to changed circumstances? And if the Prime gets a refund, does it have to pass it on to the Government if it's contract with the Government is FFP? Seems like this would be a business negotiation between prime and sub. Do the DFARS and FARS related to T&M apply to a subcontractor if the Prime doesn't include them in the subcontract/PO?

We have received an RFP that requests that we provide information that satisfies FAR 9.104. A reading of 9.104-1 (which lists various items) states the following: 9.104-1 General standards. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must? (a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a)); ( Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments; ( c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3( and Subpart 42.15). A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in 9.104-2; (d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (for example, see Subpart 42.15). (e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). (See 9.104-3(a).) (f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a)); and (g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (see also inverted domestic corporation prohibition at FAR 9.108). The list does not include any examples of what would satisfy these standards. Does anyone have any idea what kind of information the government is looking for under these items or have you had experience having to provide data to satisfy these elements in a proposal effort? If so, what type of data was submitted. Are they actually looking for financial statements or lines of credit for Item (a) above? What type of objective evidence have anyone used to satisfy (, etc...? Thanks for any guidance or help.

It has come to my attention that the government is trying to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations to remove the ability of contractors to charge fee on materials purchased under a CPFF contract. See the latest proposed changes: FAR 15.404-4(a)(3) as follows-- ``Unless the contractor acquired property is a deliverable under the contract, no profit or fee shall be permitted on the cost of the property.'' Reference website: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/hom...900006480a0279f Has anyone else heard anything about this change or seen any commentaries on it? This has HUGE implications for CPFF contracts. I don't see how this can practically be applied without incurring a huge expense tracking every resistor etc that goes into a deliverable. And then you would not be able to assess fee until after delivery.