PNWC’s Government Contracting Update - page 54

Suppose your company has worked very hard and spent many hours – some of them overtime hours -to prepare and submit a proposal by the solicitation’s cut-off date and time. But then, after the cut-off date has passed, the Government unilaterally extends the due date. Would you be upset? Would you be suspicious? Readers of this blog know that the Government can reject proposals received as untimely – happens all the time. But what circumstances would prompt the Government to extend the due date after the initial due date had closed? To enhance competition? Because they didn’t like your bid and other bids submitted prior to the cut-off date? Because they had a personal contractor preference and that contractor did not submit a timely bid? There could be all manner of reasons but we would be among the first to cast a wary eye on the deal.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: It is Okay for Government to Extend Proposal Submission Due Date After Initial Due Date Has Passed

One hundred and sixty years ago, the technology of the telegraph was very hot. Imagine, being able to send cross-country messages is less than a day. Western Union built its first transcontinental telegraph line in 1861 which, at the time, was as incredible as the computer when it first arrived. But technology doesn’t stay relevant forever and Western Union sent its last telegraph 10 years ago – back in 2006.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: No Longer Permissible to Communicate with the Government Via Telegram

Defense contractors are required by DFARS (DoD FAR Supplement) 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration, to establish and maintain an acceptable accounting system. The clause defines “acceptable” by listing eighteen criteria. (By the way, these eighteen criteria closely mirror the requirements of the SF Form 1408, Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System which most contractors are aware of). The eighteenth criteria states that the accounting system must provide for accounting practices in accordance with standards promulgated by the Cost Accounting Standards Board, if applicable, otherwise, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The SF 1408 phrases the requirement a bit differently but with the same intent. It asks the question; Is the accounting system in accord with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles applicable in the circumstances?

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Accounting Systems – GAAP Compliance

For purposes of CAS (Cost Accounting Standards), Government contractors fall into one of three categories, exempt, modified coverage, and full coverage (see CAS Coverage, Full, Modified, or Exempt). Only one percent of contractors fall under modified or full CAS coverage (see Only 1 Percent of Contractors are CAS Covered). The remaining 99 percent are exempt. But that statistic is a bit misleading to the 99 percent. Since the last last CAS Standard was promulgated 37 years ago, most of the CAS standards have been incorporated into the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) either directly or conceptually.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Does CAS (Cost Accounting Standards) Coverage Matter?

Back in the 1980s, the Government brought down a huge “pay to play” enterprise in the San Francisco bay area. Buyers (purchasing agents) for several large defense contractors required prospective subcontractors (in this case, machine shop proprietors) to pay up if they expected to get any business from these primes. The machine shops had to invite the buyers over for friendly neighborhood poker games and were expected to lose large sums of money to the buyer. The size of subsequent machining orders were based on the size of their poker losses. “Do you play poker” became the code word for the buyers’ expectations. One machine shop decided not to play and blew the whistle to Government investigators. The Government was never able to calculate the full impact of the scheme but cost-type contracts were increased by millions of dollars.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: “Pay to Play” Schemes

When a contracting officer receives a certified claim over $100 thousand, the Contracts Disputes Act (CDA) requires that within sixty days of receipt of the claim, the contracting officer shall either issue a decision or notify the contractor of the time within which a decision would be issued. The CDA also requires that the contracting officer’s decision shall be issued within a reasonable time, taking into account such factors as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of information in support of the claim provided by the contractor. If a contractor believes that the contracting officer is taking unreasonable time, the contractor can petition the court (including the ASBCA or Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals) to direct the contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time as determined by the Board.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: ASBCA Compels Contracting Officer to Issue Final Decision

Last week, DoD issued a final rule amending its FAR Supplement (DFARS or DoD FAR Supplement) to eliminate the acronym “CONUS” and replace it with a spelled-out version.

CONUS stands for “Contiguous United States” and means the 48 contiguous states plus the District of Columbia. Seems that a lot of people mistook the definition to mean “Continental United States” which would also include Alaska.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Whoa! DoD Wants to Eliminates an Acronym

Last Friday, we discussed the new DFARS (DoD FAR Supplement) provision that requires contractors to engage in “technical discussions” with someone within DoD concerning their IR&D (Independent Research and Development) projects as a precondition to having costs associated with those projects, reimbursed by the Government (see Contractors Must Now Engage in Technical Exchanges with DoD Prior to Incurring IR&D Costs).

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: DoD Wants to Add IR&D Costs to “Evaluated” Cost of Proposal

To protect the Government’s interest and to ensure timely delivery of whatever quantities the Government needs, contracting officers, prior to award, must make an affirmative determination that the prospective contractor is “responsible” i.e..is capable of performing the contract.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: The Government’s Contractor Responsibility Determination Process

Last March, a jury found an Idaho man guilty on 28 counts of wire fraud and theft of Government money. The man, Matt Ruck, was a contract administrator for a Moscow, Idaho company called Government Services Corporation although in this case, it is not possible to separate the man and the company.  The Company had a contract to supply fuel to DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and took advantage of that contract by billing the Government twice and in some cases, three times for the same product.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Man Sentenced to Five Years in Prison in Over-billing Scheme