-
Posts
3,098 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Breaking News
Everything posted by here_2_help
-
Labor Charging on US Gov FAR regulated business
here_2_help replied to cmoore812's topic in Contracting Workforce
As I previously posted, the contractor -- any contractor! -- needs to comply with the payment terms of its individual contracts. You haven't told us what the contract requires, so we cannot tell you whether Company A's billing practices are compliant with contract requirements. You want to know if Company A's disclosed cost accounting practice can "violate FAR provisions" but you haven't told us what FAR clauses you think the company is violating. Let me answer your concern(s) this way: 1. A company's CASB Disclosure Statement establishes/discloses its cost accounting practices and NOT its billing practices. Nowhere in any Disclosure Statement will you find a discussion about billing practices, since billing practices vary by contract clause. 2. A company must consistently follow its disclosed, or established, cost accounting practices. That same thing cannot be said of billing practices, since they vary by the requirements associated with indivdual contract clauses. 3. When DCAA reviews a contractor's CASB Disclosure Statement, it looks for two things. (1) Does the Disclosure Statement adequately describe the contractor's cost accounting practices? (2) Are those cost accounting practices compliant with applicable CAS requirements? FAR doesn't usually enter into the discussion, unless a specific FAR Cost Principle conditions cost allowabilty upon compliance with a Cost Accounting Standard (e.g., 31.205-18). Does this help you? -
Labor Charging on US Gov FAR regulated business
here_2_help replied to cmoore812's topic in Contracting Workforce
Contractor "A" is a division of company that does a majority of it's business with the US Govt in the Defense industry. Rates are perodically submitted for approval by DCAA, at the moment they are not approved. The disclosure statement is reviewed by DACO, the current one was submitted 10/28/2010 and not yet approved. The direct labor dollars paid to a Contractor "A" employee gets burdens (O/H, Fringe, BOSC, ITSC, G&A, COM and Fee) which compounds to approximatly 3.8 time the direct rate as a charge to the Govt. If an employee is paid $50/hour the Govt is billed at approximately $190. Contract labor employees are employed by another company which Company "A" contracts with for that persons service. If the Contract labor person makes $50/hour then the cost to Company "A" is $50 plus the Contract labor company's fee plus G&A, COM and Fee are a multiplier of roughly 1.4 (not 1.26) or about $70/hour. Company "A" realizes a gain of about $120/hour ($190 minus $70) for each hour worked by the Contract labor person. Just a clarification. Company "A" bills the Govt at the $190 rate and pays for that service at $70/hour Okay, I just saw your clarification. It looks like Company A has a T&M contract, is that correct? If so does the contract contain 52.232-7 and is the clause dated February 2007? If yes, then your question boils down to whether Company A is complying with the requirements of that clause. That's a yes/no answer that DCAA should be able to answer relatively quickly. H2H -
Labor Charging on US Gov FAR regulated business
here_2_help replied to cmoore812's topic in Contracting Workforce
It's difficult to get at your point, but let me try to interpret. 1. Company A bills the U.S. Government for "contract labor" (i.e., labor incurred by 3rd party suppliers) at its cost plus 26% plus fee. 2. Company A bills its own employee direct labor at its cost plus 280% plus (maybe) fee. These practices have been disclosed to the government in the company's Disclosure Statement. So, presumably, Company A is CAS-covered and has received CAS-covered contract awards valued at more than $50 million in a single fiscal year. Meaning Company A is not a small business and is likely to be of decent size. Your concern is ... what? That Company A's labor is too expensive and Company A should fire all its employees and just hire contract labor from 3rd parties? That Company A won its contracts based on a price determined via use of its disclosed practices, but the Contracting Officer could NEVER have concluded that the contract price was fair and reasonable, so Company A won its contracts unfairly? That Company A employees who receive fringe benefits and training and management support should not be more expensive than job shoppers who are paid statutory minimums (in terms of benefits, and told simply to show up at a company to report for work? Clearly, I'm not getting your concern. Could you articulate it more clearly, please? As you described the situation, it seems perfectly fine and normal and within Defense Industry SOP to me. Hope this helps. -
Dividing Labor and Travel across two orders
here_2_help replied to bigred's topic in Contract Administration
Your question is confusing, primarily because you use different terms. At one point you say you have "two Task Orders" and then, several times, you say you have "different contracts"? So do you have two Task Orders issued under the same contract or two different contracts? -
Not necessarily. Unless Company X told its customer that its proposed rates were based on its actual or projected costs. Then Company X lied--i.e., made a False Statement. That would be a problem for Company X. Unless the contract action was subject to Truth-in-Negotiations Act, in which case Company X had a duty to disclose its actual costs even if it chose not to use them in establishing its proposed rates. If there was a duty to disclose but no disclosure was made, then Company X committed "defective pricing". Otherwise, as Vern said, a company can propose whatever fixed rates it wants to. The Contracting Officer is supposed to review those rates and made a determination that they are fair and reasonable. If the CO says the rates are fair and reasonable, then they are, absent one of the situations I noted above. Hope this helps.
-
Vern's latest post (7:48 AM) is spot on. sakowitzm's contention that a contractor can unilaterally raise its contractually set rates because it is not otherwise recovering allocable costs is incorrect. In this scenario, doing so would be equivalent to buying in with a subsequent attempt to get well. No. Company X bought into the original contract by establishing contractually fixed rates (the "T" part of the T&M billing) and must stay bought in throughout the life of the contract. The error in the original post is being perpetrated and Vern's post of 11:15 AM corrects that error. Contracts professionals who are not strong in accounting need to understand the difference between cost accounting and billing. Cost accounting is what drives cost allocations, and is subject to various rules including CAS. Those rules demand (among other things) equitable allocations and consistent application. Under the rules, each contract (or "final cost objective") absorbs its fair share of costs and no more. Cost acccounting that violates GAAP, or CAS when applicable, or even the basic FAR Part 31 allocability rules, can result in unallowable costs. Cost accounting that intentionally violates applicable rules can easily lead to (as Vern says) "extremely serious" problems. For example, a Google search of the term "louis berger group fraud" would lead one to stories about a SWA contractor that just paid nearly $70 million to settle allegations that it intentionally mis-allocated costs to the detriment of the U.S. Government. Cost accounting is cost accounting and billing is billing. Costs accumulate and, to the extent permitted by contract terms, are billed. We all need to avoid confusing the two concepts. Finally, sakowitzm may wish to review FAR 31.205-23 ("Losses on other contracts"), which prohibits recovery of the "excess of costs over income" associated with one contract on another contract. In sum, Company X cannot unilaterally set its T&M rates at a higher rate simply to get well when it intentially bought-in. If the contract permits out-year hourly billing rates to be set based on the contractor's actual cost experience--as opposed to being contractually set at the time of award or escalating at a contractually fixed rate--then in my view the contract is not T&M but is instead cost-type. If the contractor submits a Request for Equitable Adjustment asking the Contracting Officer for an increase, solely to cover its allocable indirect costs, then in my view the CO would be justified in rejecting the REA, citing FAR 3.501-2(a)(1).
-
Not too much to add to Vern's reply, except with respect to item/question number 5. I have a bit of a problem with the terminology used by sakowitzm in the original question, which I think was vague and ambiguous in any case. I think we need to distinguish between "bid rates" and "billing rates". And "actual costs," as well. In this scenario, Company X has agreed to T&M billing rates that are lower than its total costs would have normally led it to accept. So what? Company X's T&M contract still absorbed all costs allocated to it; it just agreed not to bill all of those costs in its billing rates. In other words, after contract award bid rates are irrelevant (except perhaps in a defective pricing dispute), and what matters are the billing rates that the parties agreed-to. Actual costs are always going to be actual costs regardless of what gets billed, in every situation. In other words, there is no underabsorption in any case. Contract type has nothing at all to do with cost absorption. The Navy contract always absorbed its fair share of direct and indirect costs, and continues to do so. A year later, after "a great deal of success," 50% of the company's revenue now comes from its Navy T&M contract. I would speculate that as Company X generates more and more revenue, the delta difference between its Navy contract total cost and the amount of revenue it generates through T&M bilings (i.e., "negative gross margin") would decrease, since I would expect actual indirect cost rates to trend down as the business base increases, thus approaching the agreed-to T&M billing rates. To be clear, Company X's Army contracts do not now, nor have they ever, "subsidized" the Navy T&M contract.
-
FFP Contract Allowable Rate Increase
here_2_help replied to Milwcontractspecialist's topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
1. Yes. 2. Did the contractor propose full-up GSA pricing, or did the contractor propose bare direct labor rates plus allocable indirect costs to facilitate your cost analysis of the REA? Hope this helps. -
Pass-through Charge
here_2_help replied to Researching's topic in Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
I'd like to know why the original question referred to the statute and not to the implementing regulation(s). I believe that both the (now defunct) DFARS rule and the current FAR rule refers to "indirect costs" and does not make any further distinctions. Is somebody looking for a rule nullification because of a conflict with statute? If not, I think it's clear that all indirect costs allocated to the subcontractor (except for those associated with subcontract management functions) are subject to disallowance. Hope this helps. -
Defective Pricing???
here_2_help replied to ThePunk's topic in Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
Hi ThePunk, Let me restate Vern's post. Do you believe that the contractor knew it would negotiate lower vendor pricing at the time it excuted the CCPD? Or, do you believe that the contractor had a history of negotiating lower vendor pricing that it should have disclosed as certified cost or pricing data? If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then there is no defective pricing. And to your other point, DCAA has not focused on post-award "defective pricing" audits for a couple of years now. That's not to say they don't perform any such audits -- because they do -- but that's not where the agency focus is at the moment. Hope this helps. -
Allowable direct rate increases
here_2_help replied to lacylu's topic in Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
It is most certainly not "all or nothing". The government has the right to reimburse the contractor only for "reasonable" costs (see 31.201-3). When I type "see 31.201-3" I really mean go read it carefully, especially ((1) through ((4). Other factors that may impact the determination of reasonableness might include: whether the contractor has an approved compensation system, whether the contractor proposed escalation factors that included salary increases of such magnitude, and whether the contractor has written compensation plans that have been shared with the ACO. (Also see 31.205-6(a)(1) through (a)(5).) Hope this helps. -
Government title to contractor acquired property
here_2_help replied to Retreadfed's topic in Contract Administration
Obviously I was wrong, Vern is quite capable of providing definitive answers to Retreadfed's questions. Good answers, too. The only quibble I have with the 1:24 AM post is the use of the term "capital equipment". Technically, capital equipment (or capitalized equipment) is distinguished from expensed equipment. If the cost of a tangible asset is charged as a direct contract expense, it is not considered to be a capital asset. A contractor's capital assets are shown as assets on the balance sheet and depreciated over time. The depreciation costs are recovered (generally) as part of indirect cost rates. Sorry to be pedantic; I figured some folks might find the addendum helpful. -
Government title to contractor acquired property
here_2_help replied to Retreadfed's topic in Contract Administration
Hi Retreadfed, You do ask some good questions. I'm not so sure that anybody, even Vern, can give you definitive answers. I will direct you to a January 2006 Federal Circuit Decision (Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. v. United States) regarding the termination of a cost-sharing contract. If you are not familiar with it, I think it may open your eyes or at least get you thinking in a new direction. Wish I could be more help. -
CPA1012, Where you choose to allocate the costs of foreign commissions is a matter of your cost accounting practices (established or disclosed) and compliance with any CAS clauses in your contracts. The fact that the costs are called "DIRECT SELLING COSTS" does NOT mean that they must be charged as direct costs. Direct selling costs are distinguished from general marketing and sales costs. It's a form thing and should not affect your direct/indirect charging decision. Hope this helps.
-
Did anybody other than me read Jacques Gansler's testimony before the CWC and before the Senate Armed Services Committee (Subcommitte on blah blah)?? WIFCON posted the links.... Oh how I wish the PWACs and others in DOD policy-making positions would listen to, and implement, his recommendations. H2H
-
In the 1960's, H. Peam Piper wrote a classic SF novel, "Little Fuzzy". Award-winning SF novelist John Scalzi has "rebooted" the novel and (with the permission of the Piper estate) just published it as "Fuzzy Nation". That's what I'm reading now.
-
"T&M payment" vs "Limitations on Pass-Through Charges? clause
here_2_help replied to Whynot's topic in Contract Award Process
Yes, I'm starting to believe that is the right interpretation. Though it still baffles me how the disallowance process could work if there is no reporting and no determination of no/negligible value being added. H2H -- standing corrected -
Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) for Randolph-Sheppard Act
here_2_help replied to ipod24's topic in Contract Administration
Ipod24-- The exemptions from CAS coverage are provided at 9903.201-1( in the FAR Appendix (Chapter 99). Last time I checked, there were 10 listed exemptions, including a. awards made by sealed bidding, b. awards made to small businesses, c. awards valued at less than $650,000, d. awards made via FFP contract types where no cost or pricing data was submitted, e. awards for acquisition of commercial items, etc. There is no listed exemption for awards made pursuant to the Randolph-Shappard Act. However, there is an exemption for contracts/subcontracts whose price is set by the operation of law or regulation. Hope this helps. -
As has been posted by Joel and Vern, you can compare cost elements between offerors. But what is your purpose in doing so? 1. What do you mean by the phrase, "allows the evaluator to see which is more, or less reasonable"? A cost is reasonable or it isn't. There is no "more or less" gradation of reasonableness. If you think there is, provide a FAR citation in support. 2. The phrase, "All direct cost being equal, why would I want to choose a contractor with higher indirect rates ...?" grates on my nerves. It appears to be such a simplistic approach. To answer your rhetorical question, how about because one contractor has a quality assurance function, and a safety function, and a subcontractor management function, and an adequate accounting system, and an adequate billing system, and an adequate purchasing system, and an adequate government property control system, the cost of which is included in its indirect rates, whereas the other contractor has none of those functions/control systems, and thus has a lower indirect cost rate. Which contractor do you think would be more likely to perform the work effectively and efficiently? Which contractor would you expect to be better positioned to comply with contract terms and conditions? Which contractor would you want to select--the one with lower rates? Really? 3. Is the quality of the engineers something that can be judged by the rates paid to employees, or the fringe benefits provided? I would say (from my experience) that the correlation is doubtful. Some engineers--perhaps many--enjoy the challenge of technical work and will work where they get that satisfaction, and do not necessarily work for the employer who will pay them the most. These points underlie my concern with your question (which I articulated poorly in my first post). It seems one could get carried away with this cost comparison by cost element analysis and end up at a really unreasonable answer. Vern noted that such comparisons should be reasonable, and Joel noted that you have to understand what you're looking at. Based on what you posted I am concerned that your approach does neither. H2H
-
I can't see why you would want to do that. Each contractor stands alone in terms of its cost accounting practices. For example, assume a G&A expense pool of $1,000. One contractor has a direct labor dollar base of $10,000 and so has a G&A rate of 10%. Another contractor uses a total cost input base of $100,000 and so has a G&A rate of 1%. Same G&A expense, two different and compliant practices, two wildly different rates. Seems to me like somebody is conflating price and cost analysis, but perhaps I'm simply being naive. Hope this helps.
-
"T&M payment" vs "Limitations on Pass-Through Charges? clause
here_2_help replied to Whynot's topic in Contract Award Process
whynot, I don't think you are analyzing the situation correctly. As I interpret clause requirements, a contractor cannot have excess pass-through costs unless it subcontracts at least 70% of the work. If it does, then it needs to demonstrate how it adds value. If the contracting officer determines that no or negligible value is being added, then the contractor is incurring unallowable costs and the clause tells me how to calculate the value of those unallowable costs. I don't know why you think each category and each hour stands alone when the clause refers to the contract as a whole. The clause makes no sense only if you approach it from your point of view -- i.e., assuming that the 70% threshold applies to each labor hour. I don't believe that it does, so the clause works for me. H2H -
"T&M payment" vs "Limitations on Pass-Through Charges? clause
here_2_help replied to Whynot's topic in Contract Award Process
whynot, I'm struggling to understand your issue(s). According to the requirements of 52.215-23, if the value of subcontracted work exceeds 70% of the total contract cost, then the contractor must report that fact and verify that it is adding value, as that term is defined in the contract clause. If the contracting officer determines that the prime is not adding value ("no or negligable value") then any indirect costs and associated profit/fee allocated by the prime contractor to its subcontractors' costs will be unallowable. Please notice that costs that are billed to a customer pursuant to a contract's payment clause may or may not be the same as costs that are allocated to a contract in a contractor's accounting system. Hope this helps. -
Hi Sysyphus, The cost principle at 31.205-26(e) generally requires that inter-organizational transfers be at actual cost (not price), unless certain exceptions apply. So, generally, yes, your understanding is correct that the performing segment transfers its cost fully burdened through G&A, exclusive of fee. The responsible or requesting segment may or may not add G&A to the incoming transfer ... and this may be a point of contention, depending on whether the contractor is subject to full CAS coverage and what its Disclosure Statement says. DCAA's point of view is that the intent of CAS 410 "is that all actions which represent the total productive activity of the segment should be included in the total cost input" used to allocate G&A expenses to contracts. (Ref. DCAA Contract Audit Manual at 8-410.2 (a).) Thus, DCAA would assert that a failure to add the second G&A burden would be a violation of CAS 410. I'm not so sure and I think DCAA's interpretation ignores the Board's decision in Ford Aeronutronic (ASBCA No. 238833, 1983). In that decision, the Board "rejected the argument that in order for an alloation base to represent total activity, it must include the costs of all the activities of the business unit." (Quoting Karen Manos, emphasis in original.) Basically (and now in my own words) the Board found that determining what costs must be included in the G&A allocation base is reached by analyzing the beneficial or causal relationship between the G&A expenses incurred and those costs. Plainly, that analysis will vary business by business and is wholly circumstance-based. Presumably a mature contractor has performed that analysis and concluded that incoming transfers either (a) receive a benefit from the requesting segment's G&A functions/activities, or ( do not receive a benefit. That conclusion should drive the accounting treatment and be disclosed in policy or in the Disclosure Statement. Sorry to pontificate ... this is a pet issue of mine. Hope this helps.