DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) issued a solicitation to purchase diesel and aviation fuel. It received 31 proposals by the April 3, 2017 cutoff date. On April 8th, a company named Ghazanfar emailed DLA saying that it had submitted a proposal on March 13th but hand not received any reply or feedback about the process or progress on the proposal.
The term “data analytics” refers to qualitative and quantitative techniques and processes used to enhance productivity, business gain, and very importantly, to detect and prevent fraudulent activity. Perhaps you’ve received calls from your credit card company asking you to confirm certain recent charges to your card. How did thy pick you? How did they pick particular charges? Well, somehow, those charges were outside the norm for you. How do they know that? Through the use of “data analytics”. Or, you might have noticed that when accessing a website, you see advertising for an item that you just read up on. You might have been reading about all the wonderful features of the latest Ford or GM model then you browse headlines on CNN and find advertising for Ford or GM. How do they do that? Through the use of “data analytics”.
The Justice Department announced yesterday that a defense contractor pleaded guilty to repairing, rather than replacing, parts used on Apache helicopters.
FAR 15.306 describes a spectrum of exchanges that may take place between a contracting agency and an offeror during negotiated procurements. “Clarifications” is one end of the spectrum. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the government and offerors, that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. An agency may, but is not required to, engage in clarifications that give offerors an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Agencies have broad discretion as to whether to seek clarifications from offerors, offerors have no automatic right to clarifications regarding proposals, and such communications cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.
Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Attaching the Wrong Document Leads to Missed Opportunity
You have probably heard the news that broke last week concerning the Pentagon’s waste of $28 million buying uniforms for the Afghan National Army with a woodland camouflage pattern appropriate for two percent of the country.
Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Would Anyone Question Pink Uniforms for the Afghan Military?
Last March, we reported on a case where a former contracting official and her husband pleaded guilty to engaging in a nepotism scheme in which they conspired to fraudulently obtain employment from U.S. Government and private federal contractors with which the (former) GSA official had some form of official oversight (see Guy Just Can’t Get a Decent Job – Even With Wife’s Assistance).
We are in the process of bringing you synopses of a recent ASBCA decision that decided a number of issues related to DCAA’s (Defense Contract Audit Agency) audit of Technology Systems, Inc (TSI) fiscal year 2007 incurred costs, the ACO’s subsequent sustention of the DCAA findings and recommendations, and TCI’s appeal of the ACO’s decision before the ASBCA. Wednesday we discussed the issue of capitalization versus expensing costs. Bottom line on that one is you can’t use IRS regulations to justify your capitalization and depreciation practices. Yesterday we discussed TCI’s claim for travel expenses that exceeded the JTR (Joint Travel Regulations) maximums for lodging and per diem. In that one, TCI’s arguments were unpersuasive. Today we look at TCI’s failure to obtain “consents to subcontract” prior to awarding subcontracts.
We are in the process of bringing you synopses of a recent ASBCA decision that decided a number of issues related to DCAA’s (Defense Contract Audit Agency) audit of Technology Systems, Inc (TSI) fiscal year 2007 incurred costs, the ACO’s subsequent sustention of the DCAA findings and recommendations, and TCI’s appeal of the ACO’s decision before the ASBCA. Yesterday we discussed the issue of capitalization versus expensing costs. Bottom line on that one is you can’t use IRS regulations to justify your capitalization and depreciation practices. Today we will look at TCI’s claim for travel expenses that exceeded the JTR (Joint Travel Regulations) maximums for lodging and per diem.
Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Travel Costs in Excess of Federal Travel Regulation Maximums
We will be spending the next few days discussing an ASBCA decision involving incurred costs at Technology Systems, Inc. (TSI). DCAA issued a report on incurred cost for fiscal year 2007 noting a number of unallowable costs. The ACO (Administrative Contracting Officer) sustained many of the DCAA findings, issued a final decision, whereupon TCI appealed to the ASBCA.
Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Computer Equipment – Capitalization versus Expensing
A former employee of a U.S. Government contractor in Afghanistan pleaded guilty earlier this month to accepting over $250 thousand in kickbacks from an Afghan subcontract. What did this Government contractor employee have to do to get his $250 thousand kickback? He assisted the subcontractor in obtaining subcontracts – the classic kickback scheme.
Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Inadequate Sole-Source Justifications
