here_2_help

A contractor's G&A is an actual cost. See govtacct02's post. See both of Vern's posts. That's pretty much what you need to know about G&A. If you are still unsure about reimbursing G&A costs on contractor travel, you may want to see of your agency has a training class on analysis of contractors' indirect costs.

Bob, Thanks for posting Goodwill Industries of South Florida on the main page. It was a long decision -- but interesting because the protester received a permanent injunction preventing DLA from issuing further solicitations for the item the protester makes. The bottom-line seems to be that mandatory sources are, indeed, mandatory.

This is something that the contractor's purchasing policies should define -- for that contractor. Job shoppers (Agency-supplied temporary labor) Consultants Subcontractors Other suppliers Those terms should be defined with respect to the contractor's purchasing system. They are not synonyms for one another.

Adam Ruins Everything was an amazing show that still streams (on Hulu, I think). Here's a brief snippet from the show "Adam Ruins College". Worth two minutes of your time, in my opinion.

Or I can go to Harvest Market and pick one up!

I can't access the article (pay wall) but I've long been concerned with the current state of education. I have a child currently in high school The amount of actual learning is shockingly small. FYI, a straight A student.

Neil, I believe your post is a bit misleading. The cost principle you cite mandates that inter-organizational transfers must be on the basis of actual, allowable, costs unless a very specific except applies. See (e)(2) and paragraph (f) of the same cost principle, which takes people to FAR Part 15 as well as to Part 2 for the definition of a commercial item (product/service).

I have heard of CPSR findings being inconsistent between different review teams. It's almost like they make this stuff up as they go along.

It depends on whether or not FAR Part 31 is applicable to the subcontractor's proposal.

Yes. Agreed. That's why Vern is correct. He identified the costs that must be reported in the Table. If the OP's costs are not those costs, then they don't have to be reported.

Vern is correct, in my view. Contractors may have incurred costs in advance of contract award. One reason might be to shorten the delivery schedule. Another reason might be because the contractor routinely builds to inventory so as to have a ready supply of whatever. If the costs incurred by the contractor pre-award have already been reimbursed (e.g., IR&D) then no need to disclose them.

DCAA used to perform "financial capability audits" fairly regularly, but I think those have gone out of style in recent years. Instead, the DCMA cost monitor typically requests financial statements. I don't know what DCMA does with them; I wonder who has the skillset to understand them.

A law firm's take on the decision

Don, see Subpart 31.1 "Applicability" especially 31.102. The decision appears to be stating that, since part 31 was required to be used to analyze the price, that somehow means it is now applicable to costs that are incurred and billed. I mean ... pretty much the whole decision just seems to be a stretch, doesn't it? Which is why I described it as "notable." It breaks new ground and goes places I've never seen before. Kind of like an ice road trucker at the end of winter.

This case was back before the Judge on remand from the Federal Circuit. It would be a shame if the Judge was reversed on appeal (again).

To me, Judge Lettow's analysis is fascinating. Here's something that caught my eye: I've never seen that argument made with respect to attorney's fees. The fees are not only direct costs (which has been a controversial position; contrast FMC Corp. at the Federal Circuit with Caldera v. Northrop and Boeing North American v. Roche), but they are also direct costs of a prior period! Wow! Now I have that argument in my back pocket for future use. If you want to read the entire decision here it is.

Bonnie Ross, Not really, but why wouldn't they? If the project work is time-phased by week or month, then it's really no big deal to chop up the weeks or months to conform to whatever "year" the prime is using. At least, that's how I see it. Again, indirect rates are applied solely on the basis of the (sub)contractor's fiscal year. Sometimes insurance premiums or other benefits costs are tracked on a calendar year. Those are about the only constraints I can think of. If the (sub)contractor invests in professional proposal costing/pricing software, all this can be programmed. Costs can be sliced and diced as needed.

Don, why do you find the decision notable? Is it because the CoFC found it had jurisdiction to hear the protest, or for another reason?

What do the pricing instructions say? Whatever you do, you will need to apply your indirect rates by contractor fiscal year, even if you then aggrege the costs by GFY or by contract year.

I really don't think a contractor needs CO approval for billing subsequent to the end of a contract PoP, except in the case of (a) CPFF Term, (b) FFP-LOE Term, or (c) specific funding tied to a Government Fiscal Year. At least, that's what I tell my auditors when we have discussions on this topic. So far, they have agreed.

Given the context, I'm going to guess "Notice of Contract Extension" but who knows?

Why do you believe that the end of a contract's Period of Performance precludes the billing of costs incurred after that date? What regulation or contract term prohibits such a practice?

Seems like you have an opportunity to ask the CO what their concerns are. If the CO doesn't want your company to let its employees work weekends get that direction in writing.

I have assisted UK-based companies before. The first thing I would want to understand is the company's value-proposition. I.e., why should a large prime contractor want to subcontract with you?

Not much harder in the world of government contract cost accounting than dealing with pensions. CAS 412 and 413 are ... challenging. To say the least.