here_2_help

I'm way out of my league here and y'all are probably going to laugh at my question. Nonetheless, Why isn't there a (standard) contract clause that says something like: By accepting this offer and executing this contract, the parties agree that the negotiated price that has been agreed upon includes all tasks and activities described in the contractor's technical proposal, regardless of whether those tasks and/or activities were included in the contractor's cost proposal. If not found in the contractor's cost proposal as specific tasks and/or activities, the parties agree that they have been included in the contract price as "Not Separately Priced" items.

I'm nodding my head. You might well be correct! (Always look on the bright side of life.)

I hope the same bidder that "wasn't aware they were supposed to register in SAM" will not be as equally ignorant regarding other aspects of Federal contract compliance.

I was in LA in the mid-90's when an earthquake destroyed a vital freeway overpass. (Yes, all freeway overpasses in LA are vital, but this one was very vital.) It was rebuilt in 65 days. Here's an article on the subject from some group called the Economic Policy Institute. Another quote from the LA Times (April 1994): As I recall, the company received its multi-million dollar bonus and the workers got a pizza party. The taxpayers got their freeways back ahead of schedule. It was a win-win-win! But I hope you'll notice that it was not solely the incentives and/or disincentives that led to the extraordinary result. It was the partnership between the multiple government agencies and the contractor. Everybody from the top down was focused on getting the project done. Red tape was waived. Months were cut off from the project's schedule because of the waivers. If the Federal government wants similar extraordinary results, I assert it needs to start with the notion of partnership, with the notion of a mutuality of interest in the contractual outcome. The notion that the parties must be separated by an arms-length is fatal.

A couple of thoughts from somebody who does training from time to time. 1. You're not going to learn much from a one-hour session of pretty much anything in this business. At most, you'll receive a high-level overview. 2. $200 for one hour does not seem especially expensive to me -- $159 - $189 is the common rate I see for "webinars" of this sort 3. Your employer should be sending you to training sessions. From ACI to PCI to Fed Pubs, there are a number of seminars that might help you get where you want to go.

I'm struggling to understand why any contractor would waste its time with "non-binding" ADR that USACE could ignore and still force litigation.

Well, I'm not advocating bringing back Wunderlich, if that's what you're saying. I'm looking at 41 USC 7105(g)(1) and comparing it to reality. Emphasis added, of course.

After some reflection I am now of the opinion that no significant acquisition reform can or will come about unless there is first significant statutory reform and significant judicial reform. Too many bureaucratic rules are driven by statutes. (Vern already noted two statutes that he believes should go. To his list I would add the ADA.) Further, recent decisions at the ASBCA and Court of Federal Claims have led me to think that those forums are no longer serving their intended purposes. I would replace them with a Court of Chancery equivalent that is empowered to hear disputes without regard to the protections provided by sovereign immunity, which I believe to be a concept that has no place in American democracy.

All the individual business system clauses have prescriptions that define when they apply. As you noted, the -7005 clause prescription states it is only to be include in "covered contracts." Since the contract is a small-business set-aside and small businesses are exempt from CAS, the clause should not have been included. Tell the CO now.

I'm reminded of a story from the early '00's, when a COTR and contractor conspired to avoid DOL-mandated wage increases by strategically reclassifying employees and even demoting them, in order to avoid funding constraints and to make the base "competitive" for receiving repair work. Funny thing, though, that wasn't the behavior that brought them to the attention of the Army CID and IG auditors and GAO auditors and DoJ attorneys, but that behavior surfaced during electronic discovery and interviews. Among other behaviors that were, shall we say, inappropriate. Where was the CO in all this? Hah! More than 1,000 miles away, kept dumb and happy by the COTR's (and contractor's) reporting. I'd give you a link to the GAO report where (some) of this came out, but GAO got the facts way wrong. How do I know they got the facts way wrong? I was the team lead who spent several months at the base, doing the forensic accounting analysis--hired by the contractor to see just how bad the situation was. I had the pleasure of briefing CID folks and DoJ attorneys, and answering their questions. The contractor ended-up paying a pretty penny, including back wages to the impacted employees. (But as I noted above, that was only the tip of the iceberg.) The COTR was charged with some felonies and I think he pleaded, but I also believe he lost his pension (18 months from retirement). As for the CO, I have no idea. The CO was simply not a factor because all they did was follow the COTR's directions, which including modding the contract and MIPR'ing the money as directed.

Okay. With CyndiG having left the building, can we create any value in this thread? Two contract clauses have been referenced here (52.246-2 and 52.246-4). I'd like to explore the concept of "reasonable facilities and assistance." What does that mean in this context? For example, CyndiG the government would like a long-term presence in the contractor's facility where, "a couple of days a week," they will attempt to "'get insight' on how we execute the effort." Does that effort, as described, constitute a reasonable inspection or something else? Is is (perhaps) an attempt to illicitly obtain the contractor's proprietary production process information or other trade secrets? What distinguishes a reasonable inspection from something else? Let's move on, and suppose that DCMA wants to put a Contract Management Office (CMO) in the contractor's plant. The CMO would house not only quality inspectors but contracting officers and functional specialists. What contract clause requires the contractor to provide the government with free facilities potentially worth many thousands of dollars? Ditto for DCAA resident offices in contractor facilities. What contract clause requires the contractor to provide the space? Doesn't the DoD have appropriations to be used to provide its personnel with appropriate facilities? Anyway, just some thoughts that ran through my mind as I pondered what CyndiG was really asking about.

If you are a defense contractor, and not one of the Top 20, then it is possible that program budgets are tight. There are a few major programs that are sucking a lot of money from the trough (hello, F-35). The government's priorities are shifting (hello, hypersonics). These circumstances obviously impact other contractors. On the other hand, if you are a cybersecurity contractor or a high-tech innovator, then you should be doing just fine. I would say that the current environment strikes me as being very much business as usual -- contractors jostling each other for precious program funds. I've not really known it to ever have been any different. And yes, I experienced the Reagan years first-hand. But I admit your clients may have a different view, depending on what they sell and to whom they sell.

With respect to labor billed at the contract's hourly billing rates, the contract is effectively a fixed-price contract. Bid the same profit rate you would bid on a FFP.

It depends on the terms of the subcontract. The terms of the subcontract will determine whether the subcontractor can or cannot bill the prime.

On what basis would you charge the government for a seat? What contractual provision permits you to do that? How would you calculate the amount to be billed? Would it include a share of your indirect costs? Profit? Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

Corrected by Vern. And so it goes.

Thank you, sir. I was both horrified and grimly amused at how much the 1962 DoD policy changes paralleled -- or, perhaps more accurately, mimicked -- recent DoD policy imperatives. It is nearly 60 years later and, quite literally, nothing has changed.

First, that's really funny and I would love to see a copy of that article. Second, when did you become Kurt Vonnegut?

In my experience and almost without exception, today's CO is there to "protect the government's interests" and has little (if any) desire to act independently.

I just saw an article from National Defense magazine. According to their survey, the most important thin that the Government can do to help the defense industrial base is to "streamline the acquisition process." (35% of respondents) Number two was "ensure budget stability." (32% of respondents) Among other things, the article recommends increasing the SAT to $500,000. I know. We've all been here before. But the National Defense Industrial Association wants to keep the topic in their cross-hairs.

I'm not arguing with you ... but I was interpreting based on the topic under which the question was posted. Interpretation is inherently subjective ...

With respect, I don't think you have a strong understanding of macroeconomics or monetary policy. I mean -- forgive me if you have a Master's in Economics -- I feel as if your assertions are just assertions without a strong factual basis or understanding of causality. For example, the U.S. has had a large deficit for years. It's absolutely true that 2020 was the worst year in a very long time (and maybe ever) from a pure deficit perspective. But the size of the deficient (especially since 2001) has not had a noticeable impact on the Federal government's willingness to spend money. Similarly, the country has experienced inflation in the past (anybody remember "Whip Inflation Now"?) and the Feds were able to spend quite a bit of money during those times. There is even a theory that inflation leads to pressure to keep interest rates low, which stimulates borrowing (and thus the overall economy) -- which in turn leads to higher income to the Federal government (via taxes) that can subsequently be spent. I'm not saying I'm any kind of expert in this area, but my point is that (respectfully) I don't think you are either. I was taught a long time ago that "fear is the easiest thing to sell" and so my advice is not to take counsel of your fears.

Let me see if I understand this situation. The contractor received a Stop Work notice and stopped work. The government agreed to reimburse the contractor for its paid leave costs for the idled employees under Section 3610 of the CARES Act. If so, the reimbursement labor should have been burdened with appropriate indirect costs when the reimbursement requests were submitted. Now you want to know if the contractor is entitled to Eichleay damages for the period of time not covered by the Section 3610 reimbursements? Possibly. Where did the idled employees charge during the 30 days? Can the costs be claimed under Section 3610 instead of via an Eichleay claim? How much is at stake here (quantum)? Is it worth hiring consultants and lawyers to support your claim if your REA is rejected? Those are questions that you need to answer.

At a contractor, we were evaluating several offers for potential time-sensitive subcontract award. We did not have access to the pricing information. We identified the most technically advantageous offer. (We didn't have adjectival ratings, but we had to describe why that offer was better than the others.) It took the evaluators about a week. A couple of days later we were told that our choice had been dropped from the competition because they were too expensive. Next: which offer was Number Two, and why was it better than the other (remaining) offers? What a waste of time. Again, this was at a contractor so things are not as formal as with the government. But the evaluators agreed that we are not going to invest a lot of effort into the next evaluation until we have assurance that every offer we are evaluating has already been determined to be within the competitive range.

I don't know your accounting system. However, in my experience most contractors have a "nonbillable" WBS element on their contracts. Alternately, you can simply charge the costs the same way you would allowable/billable costs, but with an attribute that prevents billing.