Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'g&a'.
Found 4 results
-
Hi, I have a question regarding a FFP contract under our program, which includes CLINs that effectively function as ODCs. The Contractor is responsible for designing and constructing a sports field. As part of their cost proposal, they are charging both G&A expenses and a fee. My main concern is whether it is typical or allowable for ODCs to include G&A charges. From my understanding, ODCs typically represent direct costs incurred specifically for the contract's purpose (e.g., materials, travel, equipment), and they may sometimes include a burden for handling. However, is it customary for G&A to be applied in this case, or should those costs be absorbed elsewhere? Additionally, how does this interact with the fee being charged, and are there guidelines on whether it's appropriate to apply both? Would appreciate any clarification or insights into whether this practice aligns with typical contracting standards or if we need to reassess how costs are being allocated under these CLINs. Thanks! -
Hi ALL, Government customer is pushing back on our Prime invoice submission which included (a reduced) G&A on top of a Subcontractor ODC where they (sub) applied G&A to ODCs (Travel). Basically our sub incurred travel expense that are allowable and billable to the program and sub applied G&A to ODCs when submitting their invoice to Prime for processing. Prime applied G&A when processing the subs ODCs (at a reduced rate) onto final invoice (in customers mind we are "doubling up" G&A - I should also note this is the first time this long standing contract (FFP) has had a sub on it so this is new to this group of GS that handle this program). We've been in contracting for 20+ years and been through a ton of audits both with DCAA and other firms and the only push back we've ever received on this was "why we were applying a discounted G&A instead of our actual G&A to these?" never that it was unallowable, speaking to colleagues in the industry this seems pretty standard practice. My question is, does anyone know of FAR clause relating to this or have a better way of explaining to customer? I tried to explain that both companies are applying G&A to it because we are both incurring expense to process these ODCs (was worded better than that) but he still has doubts. I appreciate any and all feedback!
-
If a government prime contractor issues a Time & Material subcontract, can the G&A applied to materials be a fixed/lump sum value, so long as that lump sum value is established and set at the time of award? I understand the four criteria established in Urban Data System v. US, but I am trying to determine if the only way to surely avoid violation is to reconcile the G&A rate applied to materials to actuals at the close of an accounting period.
-
Hi I'm looking at a proposal under the following scenario: Single Source Award/Certified C&P Data required Contract Type FFP (one T&M CLIN) Offeror: CAS covered (submits D/S). IAW Disclosed Practices G&A base is TCI. Offeror has a pool for material handling (M&H) (base - direct materials). Direct materials and the expenses on the M&H pool are part of the G&A base. 1. Here's the way the offeror is burdening materials in the proposal: Lets assume the M&H rate is 5% and G&A is 50% Direct Materials is $100,000 Materials 100,000 M&H 5,000 Subtotal 105,000 G&A 52,500 (subtotal x G&A) Total Material Cost 157,000 2. Here's the way I believe it materials should be burdened when the offeror has an M&H pool (value added G&A): Materials 100,000 M&H 5,000 Subtotal 105,000 G&A 2,500 ( M&H expense x G&A) Total Material Cost 107,500 3. Or if offeror has a TCI base: Materials 100,000 G&A 50,000 Total Material Cost 150,000 So basically they are applying G&A on top of M&H and materials. believe that if the offeror applies an M&H to materials it can apply G&A to the handling expense only and not to the direct material cost. If the offeror has a TCI allocation base for G&A, then it should only apply G&A to direct materials with no M&H. Are they doing this correctly or am I wrong?