The “How-To” for Defining Profit or Fee in DoD Price Proposals
A common question many contractors may find themselves asking: “How are we going to determine and bid profit/fee percentages to be applied in a proposal?” As always, each individual contractor has the right to determine the amount of applied profit/fee they want to bid for each contract. Dependent upon work scope, products/services offered, and even contract type, the risk is different and the competition providing proposals to the end users can vary greatly without going over statutory limitations. Contractors can utilize the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) Weighted Guidelines approach as a tool in determining their profit negotiation position,. Read More.
DoD’s Final Rule on Counterfeit Electronic Parts Safe Harbor
On August 2, 2016, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued its final rule on Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts—Further Implementation. The rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement by laying a safe harbor related to counterfeit and suspect counterfeit electronic parts. The safe harbor has three parts: The contractor must establish and maintain a system to detect and avoid counterfeit and suspect counterfeit electronic parts. The contractor must obtain review and approval of its system from DoD. The counterfeit or counterfeit suspect electronic parts must have been provided to the contractor as government property, or the contractor. Read More.
DoD Proposes Changes to Cost or Pricing Data Rules for Small Businesses
On August 30, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a proposed rule to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 that provides exceptions from the certified cost and pricing data requirements, and from the records examination requirement for certain awards to small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors. The proposed rule would amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to provide an exception from cost or pricing data for contracts, subcontracts, or modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million. This exception would be applicable to small businesses or “nontraditional” defense contractors,. Read More.
Topics: Cost Accounting Standards "CAS", Cost Data, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement "DFARS", Department of Defense "DoD", National Defense Authorization Act "NDAA", Pricing Data, small business
Subcontractor Oversight (Who’s Responsible?)
By: John N. Ford, JD ; Senior Consultant Who has privity? 42.505 – Post-award Subcontractor Conferences (a) The prime contractor is generally responsible for conducting post-award conferences with subcontractors. However, the prime contractor may invite Government representatives to a conference with subcontractors, or the Government may request that the prime contractor initiate a conference with subcontractors. The prime contractor should ensure that representatives from involved contract administration offices are invited. (b) Government representatives– (1) Must recognize the lack of privity of contract between the Government and subcontractors; (2) Shall not take action that is inconsistent with or alters subcontracts; and (3) Shall ensure that. Read More.
Topics: Cognizant Federal Agency "CFA", Cost Accounting Standards "CAS", Defense Contract Audit Agency "DCAA", Department of Defense "DoD", National Defense Authorization Act "NDAA", privity of contract, subcontractors
ESOPs Gain in Popularity
By: John Carpenter , Principal Many private company business owners are taking a closer look at Employee Stock Option Plans (“ESOPs”) as a tool for either an exit strategy or a way to “take money off the table” through a sale of a portion of their company stock holdings. ESOPs were a less popular diversification strategy during the 2000s when government spending was on the rise, especially within the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and many companies could sell for attractive multiples with large, upfront cash components. The combination of flat to declining DoD budgets leading to less attractive market multiples, and capital. Read More.
New Guidance–Limited Role for DCAA Audit of Non-DoD Contracts
The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, S.1356) (“the Act”) includes a number of sections related to Acquisition Policy or Acquisition Management. In particular, the Act discusses the subject of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) contract audits and the requirements for improved auditing on the incurred cost backlog (“Indirect Cost Rate Proposals”; “ICPs”) are explicitly mentioned. Section 893 prohibits DCAA from performing any audits for non-defense agencies (e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”)), unless the Department of Defense (“DoD”) certifies that DCAA is current on the ICP backlog or less. This restriction could cause some disruption for contractors. Read More.