here_2_help

Vern gave you a great reference. Others I have read include: Contracting with the Federal Government (Worthington/Goldsman) and Pricing and Cost Accounting: A Handbook for Government Contractors (Oyer). Both are unfortunately out of print but may be available for purchase online if you look hard enough. The absolute classic, Treuger's Accounting Guide for Government Contractors, ended publication after four decades with the 10th Edition. Still highly relevant in terms of strategy, though things have changed a bit since 1991.

Sad news, indeed. Bob made a deep impression on me. I will be ever grateful for the site he created and maintained.

Thanks Vern. What Jamaal said

Okay. Perhaps you're speaking broadly. But my reading of 2 CFR 200 tells me that the FAR Part 31 cost principles definitely do apply. A price that is not reasonable is not allowable. I see nothing objectionable about searching the FAR and DFARS for available techniques for determining price reasonableness. I would assert that if a technique is acceptable for a DoD contracting officer to use, that same technique ought to be acceptable for a contractor's buyer to use. In any case, GovKor asked for suggestions and I provided some. If none of my suggestions work then ... shrug. I've done what I can do. Perhaps someone else has better ideas.

Have you considered treating your nontraditional subrecipients as being providers of commercial services pursuant to the above?

So ... the subrecipients have never performed R&D services for any other entity before. They have never performed independent R&D for their own benefit. Is that what you are saying? Because if so, I wonder why in the heck you are considering using them.

Emphasis added to the above. With respect to price analysis, there are several available techniques that may be used before one needs to use cost analysis. Only one technique requires competition. In summary, if you want to avoid cost analysis but don't have competition, the regulations say you may be able to do so. The onus is on you to choose the right technique to show why the proposed subrecipient price is fair & reasonable. One way may be to have the subrecipient show prices paid by other entities for the same or similar services. I realize that this is all proposal evaluation 101; but in my experience some people forget that competition and comparison of proposed prices is not the only price analysis technique available. Hope this helps.

GovKor, Are you requiring submission of certified cost or pricing data? If not, what cost data are you analyzing?

Rule 17?

I'm interested in the bolded words, above. What is a "defect in the services"? (I think Vern may have been thinking a similar question.) How is a "defect" defined or measured? In my consulting relationships, the quality of service to be provided is defined in the agreements. Often, a reference is made to the AICPA consulting standards. Even more often, I agree to provide services "with due care and in conformity with a reasonable level of care generally associated with professionals in our business." (Vague, I know. But that's what my attorney recommended and it seems to be working so far.) Unless "a defect in the Services" is defined, I don't see how a reasonable person would accept the agreement as drafted. EDITED TO ADD: I always limit damages to fees paid or, less frequently, to a multiple of fees paid. Accepting the possibility of damages without limit seems ... reckless.

Are you CAS-covered? Do you have a Disclosure Statement? If you make the change, what is the impact to existing contracts where you didn't bid the efforts as direct labor and, therefore, do not have budgets established?

Are you sure your dates are correct because Feb 2024 is well within the Period of Performance you specified (29 Sept 2023 to 29 Sept 2024). Second, it's nearly impossible for anyone here to assist you without access to the contract and all the facts. In my opinion, you should hire an experienced government contracts attorney.

I wouldn't want to bill the government for hours not worked. I suggest you sit down with the contracting officer and walk through the situation. Suggest there is now an opportunity to deobligate some contract funds and put them to use elsewhere.

I don't have any of the facts but I wonder whether there is a subcontractor who is difficult for the prime to deal with. Perhaps a subcontractor who is being asked to submit certified cost or pricing data but is not well-versed in TINA requirements and compliance? Shrug. Just a wild guess. Most every contractor I work with takes great pride in submitting solid proposals on time without needing to ask for extensions. But then again, those contractors have robust and adequate estimating systems.

Two. With some thought, you can follow what's going on. But you need to look at what's there and THINK about what the CO is trying to do. For most small businesses, they won't have the time and/or will be overwhelmed. Either they'll submit an offer without being certain what they are bidding on, or else they will pass.

To your question: I think a reasonably knowledgeable person could and would figure out that "1202SA22R9201 - HSS - Type 1.pdf" is the solicitation. There are a number of amendments (aren't there always?) that a reasonable person should be able to navigate. The pricing workbooks? Not so much. I hope the Solicitation instructions provide clarity whether one, or all, of the pricing workbooks must be completed and submitted for evaluation. The distinction (if any) between "T1" and "T1Modern" is not apparent. I would guess that, as questions were answered, the pricing workbooks evolved to address offerors' concerns. Maybe. If so, then I guess only the most recent workbook (one for "T1" and one for "T1Modern"?) would need to be submitted. But who knows unless the instructions provide the answer.

I'm wondering whether there is a prohibition on quick-close by CLIN. Suppose one or more CLINs have been successfully performed, delivered, and accepted. May the contracting parties agree to close out those CLINs while leaving others open until completion?

Love it

Hmm. Fascinating. Gonna put a stop to a lot of FCA cases if this decision is upheld.

Well. 1. Yes, it would have been a CAS 401 noncompliance as the costs were proposed as labor then billed as non-labor (ODC). Inconsistent cost accounting practices. 2. The Allowable Cost and Payment clause (52.216-7) requires a contractor to submit an annual proposal to establish final billing rates (final indirect cost rates). The proposal must be submitted in the specified format. See 52.216-7(d)(2). In particular, note the descriptions of Schedules H and I. If a contractor incurs labor costs, presumably they will be burdened with labor overhead. Presumably those same costs, in billed as an ODC, would not be similarly burdened. This would set up a disconnect within the schedules, one that might well render the submission inadequate for audit. 3. You don't want advice on your issue. Got it. Hope this helps.

TINA does not apply. Okay. There is no mischarging if the contractor personnel are charging the correct CLINs based on the work actually being performed. Thus, I keep going back to the contractor proposal. What did the contractor say that led to the FFP CLIN price being established? Why did the government believe that price was fair and reasonable? If the determination was made at the contract level, not the CLIN level, then what was the basis for the determination? In other words, did the contractor make a misstatement or otherwise mislead the government into setting a price that was reasonable only if personnel charged the CLIN on a full time basis? If not--or if there is no way to know--then I don't think there is much that can be done. Holding up payment is not the way to go, in my view, as that may be a different breach.

All right. We get to the same place either way.

The defective data would be the labor plan that posited full-time charging when the contractor knew that would not be the case. I realize that cost data in support of a proposal is not necessarily cost & pricing data, but facts upon which an estimate is based would be. The fact is the labor plan that supports the proposed price. (Assuming there is one, of course.)

We don't know whether TINA applies, but if it does and the contractor bid the FFP CLIN assuming full-time key personnel charging while also knowing that they would not charge full-time, then you might have defective pricing. If I was the CO that's where I would focus the auditors. Full-time = 40 labor hours per week where I come from, though the amount might be reduced to "productive labor hours" for holidays and other paid time off.

One of the few books I inherited from my father is Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine It was his college textbook when he took Professor Wiener's class at MIT. Published in 1948.