here_2_help

Is the travel taking place during normal work hours?

Yes, that's the voice of experience. I hear you.

When I (a contractor) and the government cannot reach agreement on an FPRA, I use my FPRP rates as my bid rates. The government counters with its FPRR rates. Often, negotiations are challenging because, if we could have reached agreement earlier, I would already have an FPRA. You are negotiated estimated contract cost. Actual allowable costs will be actual costs and will be billed, sooner or later (see 52.216-7). Insistence on using rates that are lower than the contractor expects generally leads to a request for additional funding IAW 52.232-20 or -22. If you want to check the validity of the contractor's position, ask for an analysis that compares FPRP rates submitted versus actual costs submitted in the certified final billing rate proposal for the past three years. If the contractor is not accurately forecasting future costs, you can use the FPPR rates with confidence. However, if the contractor shows a good track record in being able to forecast future costs (and associated indirect rates), then you may want to believe it this time around.

45.104 Responsibility and liability for Government property. (a) Generally, contractors are not held liable for loss of Government property under the following types of contracts: (1) Cost-reimbursement contracts. (2) Time-and-material contracts. (3) Labor-hour contracts. (4) Fixed-price contracts awarded on the basis of submission of certified cost or pricing data. (b) The contracting officer may revoke the Government’s assumption of risk when the property administrator determines that the contractor’s property management practices are noncompliant with contract requirements. (c) A prime contractor that provides Government property to a subcontractor shall not be relieved of any responsibility to the Government that the prime contractor may have under the terms of the prime contract. (d) With respect to loss of Government property, the contracting officer, in consultation with the property administrator, shall determine- (1) The extent, if any, of contractor liability based upon the amount of damages corresponding to the associated property loss; and (2) The appropriate form and method of Government recovery (may include repair, replacement, or other restitution). (e) Any monies received as financial restitution shall be credited to the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, unless otherwise authorized by statute ( 31 U.S.C. 3302(b)).

Yep

Sure, but my copy is suitable for putting on a bookshelf in a CMO

In related news, I have a copy of the ASPR Manual for Contract Pricing, dated 1975, that's available if somebody wants it. I've had it for years, and never once used it. Message me if interested.

In this scenario, would the contractor be required to have an approved Property Management System IAW 252.245-7003? If so, should that have been an evaluation factor (or maybe a responsibility factor) in the original competition for award? If the contractor is required to develop an adequate System in order to properly track government-issued laptops, and assuming there is no other contract that requires an adequate tracking system, would the CO be willing to pay for that effort as a direct contract cost? Bottom-line is that telling the contractor to track the laptops carries with that direction the possibility that there will be an increased cost of performance. I would hope the IGCE included that "hidden" cost in its estimate.

Spot on, Vern, but I feel as if you're shouting into the abyss.

Thanks Bob! Designing and building a nuclear powered vessel (tempted to type wessel) is such a challenge -- and the successful completion of an important milestone is worth noting.

Absolutely spot on observation. I recall discussing the "human capital crisis" circa 2006/2007. At the time, I was quoted in Aviation Week. Doesn't matter. When there is no accountability for the lack of problem-solving then, as Kenan Thompson famously said on Saturday Night Live, "ain't nothing gonna happen."

Oftentimes I found a subsidy requirement, where losses were subsidized ... just to reduce any incentive to cut staff or food quality in order to increase profits. In fact, for one contractor, substantially all the profit came from tax credits generated by the work and the people hired. The work was surprisingly complex. (At least, I was surprised.) This is actually a commercial service. It should be treated as such.

Thank you Bob -- much appreciated!

I dunno. But I do know that the US Government acquires food services from contractors on a routine basis. I recall visiting a Pentagon cafeteria, back in the day, so I could interview the cafeteria operator. In fact, I interviewed several cafeteria operators, not just at DoD facilities but at civilian agency facilities as well as in private industry. Yes, this was a while ago, but NOBODY was under an ID/IQ contract. Why this particular "food service facility" contract would need to be structured in a manner that is unlike the standard approach is but one of the mysteries associated with this question.

Just to pile on this hypothetical ... walk me through how, after market research, somebody reached the conclusion that these services were NOT commercial services to be acquired using Part 12 procedures. We doing lawn care to MIL-SPEC these days?

Over here in private industry, one of our standard practices for each new hire is a 60-day action plan. My team doesn't let new hires sit idle. Period. There is training--both mandatory and discretionary (based on an individual skills assessment) and immediate immersion into new and/or ongoing projects. I'm not claiming this is a best practice; it seems to be an obvious practice. Why did you hire the person if there is not work for them to do?

Jumping in here to remind PATRICK3 of the clause 52.215-23 ("Limitations on Pass-Through Charges") which is prescribed by 15.408(n)(2). If the past performance info and the workers are all coming from the subK, then what value does the prime add to the equation?

FAR-flung 1102 -- thanks for the link. Here's a quote from the story you linked to: I've met Rob before; he's an informed and erudite man. But this quote? Not his best thinking, in my opinion.

Why has the CAS Board failed to fill vacant seats as required by statute?

I don't know, Don. I feel as if that's been every job I've ever had in a very long career. Finding a mentor who can guide you through the Kafkaesque maze is always a challenge. The good news--and it's been very good news for me--is that once you've devoted hours to reading policy, procedure, and other command media, then YOU become the mentor. People reach out to you, asking for advice and assistance. It's job security. Being able to navigate between organizational silos is a value-added skill. I come to WIFCON in the hopes of adding to my knowledge and skills re: contracting. I read and I try to learn. Now, at my place of work, contracts people come to me for advice and assistance. They come to me--a back-office beancounter--because I often know more about their own subject matter than they do. Why? Because I sought to learn. So ... I don't know. I feel the person's frustration. But it doesn't feel to me like a challenge that can't be overcome with perseverance and a willingness to work at learning stupid bureaucratic rules.

Not in government. My old boss, Bill, believed that everybody who worked for him needed to be skilled in everything. Commodity procurement, low-dollar buys, catalog buys, prime contract management, cost-type, FFP, T&M, subcontract management. Everything. He believed that specialization was for insects. My thought is that one can be the world's greatest bread-maker, but might not be sufficient to get a job in a diner that required the ability to make multiple dishes.

I've already experienced OTA recidivism. The phenomenon is just ... depressing. The entire situation is depressing.

In addition to this rather damning fact, I would add that the CASB Disclosure Statement (DS-1) was last revised and reissued in February, 1996. Literally more than twenty-five years ago. I wonder if any aspects of Federal acquisition have changed in the past 25 years? (Sarcasm.) The current DS-1 reflects government experience buying supplies. The focus is on manufacturing. There is but short shrift given to labor. I have a services provider preparing its first DS-1 right now, and I'm spending a fair amount of time translating the ancient language and concepts into their language. So much is not addressed, and so much that is addressed in simply N/A to a services provider. I tell them it's a government form and they have to complete it as written, notwithstanding that most of the questions are N/A or require detailed explanations on the continuation pages. In my view, its shameful how little attention has been paid (by those who are paid to pay attention) to bringing the Federal acquisition environment into the 21st century. The CAS Board is the poster child for negligence in this area.

Why do you believe that your subcontract type has to match your TO contract type? Can you point me to the regulation or instruction that requires that?

I'm not a government employee, so likely my opinion is irrelevant. That said, I've always mistrusted skills testing. It's hard to identify exactly which skills are critical to job success, and then creating a fair and consistent test is difficult. Sure, you can have somebody create Excel pivot tables in front of you, but how do you evaluate analysis of the information thus provided? As I typed, it's difficult. I think I posted a few days ago that when I started hiring for character attributes, such as curiosity, things changed in my department. I can teach to those willing to learn, and I can let those willing to read and think teach themselves. Those are the people I'm hiring for. So this approach doesn't strike me as the great innovation that's going to fix the government acquisition workforce.