Government Contracting Resources » DoD contracts

Requirements Type Contracts, What you need to Know

tdiguiseppe — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:14:46 +0000

A good short article on the uniqueness of a Requirements contract. But what is most interesting is how the article demonstrates it is important to review and view the contract clauses and requirements as a whole, not individuality to fully understand their potential impact on your as contractor.

Click here for a copy of the article

Determining Manufacturing Readiness Risk as part of the Source Selection process

tdiguiseppe — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:42:08 +0000

DFARS (DFARS Case 2011-D031) is proposing that as part of the source selection process, manufacturing readiness and manufacturing-readiness processes of potential contractors and subcontractors, be considered for major defense acquisition programs (MDAP).

Of course nothing in the proposed rule, as described in the Federal Register, defines what manufacturing readiness and processes are and how that will be measured/determined during the source selection process.

Most likely DoD is floating this rule out there to get major manufactures input, through their comments, on how this would work, and what the parameters should be.

While most major prime contractors would be able to address this potential issue, it is the subcontractors on such MDAP that need to be concerned about the proposed rule. Because it would not be the CO obtaining this information during the source selection process, but the prime obtaining the information from prospective subcontractors. This could expose the subcontractors intellectual property as it relates to its manufacturing processes, to the prime.

This could put the subcontractor at a significant negotiating disadvantage with the prime. Another area, from this administration, in a long line of new risks being faced by subcontractors.

Tim Di Guiseppe

Click here for a copy of the Federal Register and info on where to submit comments

OFCCP Releases Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Protected Veterans

tdiguiseppe — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:04:02 +0000

“These obligations require, for the first time, quantitative measurements for the hiring of protected veterans,
self-identification invitations pre and post-offer, and a documented review of specified personnel practices.”

Be prepared to significantly increasing policies, procedures and reporting requirements not only internally but also when flowing down contract clauses to subcontractors.

Tim

Click here for a copy of the article

DFARS Case 2009-D031, Government Support Contractor Access to Technical Data, Interim rule

tdiguiseppe — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:40:30 +0000

I would recommend all contractors discuss with their outside counsel the impact and potential risk to the security of their technical data this interim rule poses. If any contractor needs a recommendation for counsel with expertise in this subject matter feel free to contact me via email or at the following number 814-242-2410

Click here for a link to the Federal Registor for DFARS Case 2009-D031

Another example of the Idiocy call guidance to DCAA auditors

tdiguiseppe — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:08:35 +0000

Below is one of the best examples of government double speak and CYA that I have seen in a long time. This statement allows DCAA to site the contractor for a system deficiency while also taking advantage of the cost saving when a contractor reduces it rates to be competitive.

DCAA Technical Advice

Recent advice for a DCAA Regional Technical Programs Specialist regarding a contractor’s decision not to invoice for the fully allowable indirect cost rates:

“The voluntary underbilling should be cited as a [system] “(b) … In establishing billing rates, the contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) or auditor should ensure that the billing rates are as close as possible to the final indirect cost rates anticipated for the contractor’s fiscal period, as adjusted for any unallowable costs.” (Emphasis added) If a contractor does not anticipate invoicing the fully allowable amount, the contractor’s actions would not violate the wording of the provision. deficiency.”

DoD scales back plan to restrict payments to some contractors

tdiguiseppe — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:06:18 +0000

Under a barrage of contractor criticism, the Defense Department has softened a plan to hold back contract payments as a way to prod companies to fix problems in their accounting and other business systems.

In a proposed rule released in January, DoD had sought authority to withhold 10 percent of payments if a particular business system was found to be deficient. Under a new proposal published this month in the Federal Register, that amount is cut to 5 percent and for small businesses would be limited to 2 percent. If a deficiency is considered high risk, the maximum that could withheld would be capped at 20 percent, down from 100 percent in the original proposal. And in response to complaints that the original draft was overly subjective, officials spell out compliance criteria more clearly.

In general, the revised proposal does a “much better job of laying out the attributes of each of these business systems” and then linking enforcement to compliance with those attributes, said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council, a contractor trade group. While not ready to give the revision a passing grade without more study, “I liked what I saw,” Chvotkin said.

But Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, viewed the new proposal as “a giant step backward” for contractor accountability. And because DoD is issuing a second proposed rule, another year may pass before contracting officers get the authority to withhold payments, said Amey, who had wanted the Pentagon to make its original draft more stringent.

Click this link for a copy of the Federal Times Article

Increase threshold in Price proposal audits

tdiguiseppe — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:36:44 +0000

A DCAA memo issued 10/18/2010 raises the threshold for price proposal audits.

According to the memo, contracting officers’ requests for DCAA reviews of contractor cost data must meet a threshold of $10 million for fixed-price proposals and $100 million for cost-type proposals, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Previously, the threshold was $700,000 for fixed-price proposals and $10 million for cost-type proposals. The rule became effective Sept 17, 2010

Tim

Click here for a copy of the DCAA memo

Full CAS coverage for contracts performed entirely outside the US

tdiguiseppe — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:32:18 +0000

Attached is a Federal Register on the Office of Federal Procurement Policy seeking comments on its proposed rule change in CAS exemption CAS qualified contracts performed entirely outside the US, its territories, and possessions from the CAS. As you read through this doc you will see that OFPP submitted this same proposal for public comment in April 2009. The comments received are included in this doc and make for interesting reading. No indication why the OFPP felt it necessary to resubmit this proposal for public comment again, but this is your opportunity to voice your opinion.

Most likely this rule change will become final. It will place additional burdens on US companies with such contracts and will place these companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign companies who, even with this change, will still only have to comply with CAS 401 and 402.

Click here for a copy of the Federal Register

Key Concerns for Government Contractors

tdiguiseppe — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:24:43 +0000

The environment in which government contractors have to work within has changed significantly over the last couple of years and the trend looks to continuing. The changes have created uncertainty in the industry and concerns as to potential increased risk to contractors. The attached PowerPoint documents address these changes and their impact to the industry. Subjects covered include:

Life under the new DCAA attitude
Allowability of Specific Costs
Adequate and Timely Incurred Cost Proposals
Business Ethics & Conduct and Mandatory Disclosure
Proposed DFARS Rule: Withholding Payments to DoD contractors
Prime Contractor Management of Subcontractors
Organizational Conflict of Interest – DFARS update, Requirements and problems
Reporting Subcontract Awards Greater than $25,000
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
FAR Subpart 4.15 – Reporting Requirements
DoD Finalizes Changes to DFARS on Export Control
Labor Relations Cost – Cost to fight unionization unallowable

To read more click here

DoD finalizes changes to DFARS on export control

tdiguiseppe — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:49:15 +0000

DoD Contractors and Subcontractors: Are You Complying with the New Flowdown Notice Requirement on U.S. Export Control Laws?

Compliance with U.S. export control laws is critical during this time of heightened enforcement. A recent U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) Final Rule requires that a clause mandating strict compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations be included in all DoD solicitations and contracts, including contracts between prime contractors and subcontractors. On April 8, 2010, the DoD amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to include this new requirement, which is provided at DFARS, 252.204-7008.¹ This “flowdown” clause must be contained in all subcontracts arising from a DoD prime contract.

Click here for a copy of this article