Posted by Mike Anderson on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 @ 06:05 PM
Many of you may remember the TV commercial many years back where the announcer said "Its 10:00pm. Do you know where your children are?". The idea was to focus parents attention on their children in the formative ages. The same might be said right now to government contractors: "It's September, do you know where your indirect rates are?". The parallels here are astounding. The premise on the parenting message is that if you as a parent don't know what your children are doing at this hour of the day, you may have a nasty surprise when they get caught. In the government contracting world there could be similar consequences. For instance, if your rates are not following your approved rates you could be faced with giving the government some money back at the end of the year or the end of the contract. If you did know where your rates were, how would that change anything you say? Well, if your rates are running too low, there is still time left in the year to spend the indirect money that was originally budgeted in order to bring the rates back into line before the end of the year. The longer you wait, just like postponing writing that term paper, the more difficult this will be to bring your rates back into line. Now is a good time to look at your indirect rates, compare them to your approved billing rates and take action to prevent unpleasant surprises at the end of the year.
Posted by Mike Anderson on Wed, Aug 18, 2010 @ 06:05 PM
Tech BizSolutions, Inc. is looking to expand our nationally recognized staff. We are looking for special individuals. The right person is someone that has accounting experience/knowledge and also knowledge of government accounting requirements. So the right individual will know about all the Federal Acquisition Regulations, know about Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and have experience in servicing contracts with the Federal Government. Familiarity with small business accounting programs such as QuickBooks, PeachTree, Deltek GCS and others is definately a plus.
Tech BizSolutions, Inc. is a dynamic, growing consulting practice that helps small to medium sized businesses profitably do business with the Federal Government. We value our clients and the growth and success of their companies above all and that is an important trait for any team member at Tech BizSolutions. We pay competitive salaries and have benefits such as holidays, vacation time, health insurance and, in the near future, a retirement savings program.
If you are interested in this position, or if you know someone that would be, please click on this link to
submit a resume.
Posted by Mike Anderson on Fri, Aug 13, 2010 @ 05:30 PM
When you see the term "counterfeit parts" what do you immediately think? I know to me the word "counterfeit" will always bring an immediate association to "counterfeit money" to me and obviously major felony crime implications. To the government, "counterfeit parts" mean parts whose identity or pedigree is knowingly misrepresented. This also can have felony implications. But, according to the GAO report, the government does not have a consistent means to identify all instances of counterfeit parts. The
General Accounting Office (GAO) did a report earlier this year regarding 3 major objectives: 1) The DoD's knowledge of counterfeit parts in the supply chain, 2) The DoD's process to detect and prevent counterfeit parts and 3) commercial initiative to mitigate the risk of counterfeit parts. Part of the difficulty found by the GAO was that there is no consistent definition of counterfeit and no consistent means to identify this type of part. There also could be inadvertant mistakes like whether or not stainless steel washers are covered under the
Berry Ammendment or not covered per the
DNAD issued December 8, 2006. The point is that there are parts in the system that are counterfeit. We don't know how many but we do know that they can affect not only the integrity of products used (integrity of military parts due to this issue is not acceptable) but possibly the delivery schedule. The GAO report recommends specific guidance and dissemination to defense contractors. This could mean more contract requirements but this is a "good" contract requirement. We don't need parts that are supplied with misrepresented identity or pedigree. Maybe this will also keep more jobs, albeit in a small way, in this country. That is a good thing.
Posted by Mike Anderson on Wed, Aug 04, 2010 @ 03:13 PM
There appears to be a lot of "unspent" money left in the FY 2010 budget that has not yet been spent. Some estimates show that there is over $110 Billion that has not been spent and there are only 2 months left in the fiscal year. Now, given the state of the economy and the trend of the Obama Administration, it may not all get spent this year. Especially when you consider the President's State of the Union address where he proposed a "freeze" on spending other than for National Security. But when you look at where the funds are available, there is over $70 Billion of Department of Defense money not yet spent and over $700 Million between International Assistance & the State Department. Certainly if a contractor has a product or service that would be of value to the government and you know who to talk with in the procurement group, now would be the time to talk with them about getting a government contract in place before the end of the fiscal year. Those funds will either not be available in the first place next year or the contracting organization will be under a lot more scrutiny in making purchases. The window of opportunity for just about any small business getting into government contracting may be closing somewhat in the near future. It's like my old high school football coach used to say: "The train is getting ready to leave the station and either you are on the train or you will be left in the station".
Posted by Mike Anderson on Fri, Jul 30, 2010 @ 02:32 PM
Last week the President signed into law a bill known as the
Improper Payments Act. This law will have huge impacts on the government contracting community in the near and long term future. This new law is designed to take a major bite out of the estimated $110 Billion in misspent and/or fraudulent payments from the Federal Government annually. The President has stated that he expects to reduce this number by at least $50 Billion by 2012 with the help of this law. The law is designed to put pressure on the government agencies to force them to make sure they are paying only legitimate contractors (previous investigations have showed payments to deceased people, to multiple organizations with addresses like the Alamo in Texas, etc). There will be audits of the agencies to enforce the law. This almost certainly will add overhead and layers of procedure to the procurement cycle. This should serve to slow down the procurement cycle and possibly slow down the payment cycle if nothing else. It also will put pressure on the contractors that are successful in bidding on and winning federal contracts. They most certainly will be faced with additional regulations to comply with, and likely be forced to prove that they comply with these regulations. The penalties of being found not compliant with the new law could end up putting contractors on a "no bid" list for future business and even have severe criminal penalties if actions were deemed fraudulent. Now, more than ever, all government contractors need help with the compliance issues to make sure they can deal with the new laws.
Posted by Mike Anderson on Thu, Jul 15, 2010 @ 10:18 AM
With all of the discussion in the news and all of the advertising we have seen over the last couple of years for "going green" it only makes sense that "going green" in federal contracting would follow. The GSA formed a cross-agency group recently regarding Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. They concluded that not only was it possible to track this but it could be controlled somewhat by coordination with government suppliers. For instance, it was estimated that IT systems alone were responsible for over 1 1/2% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The reasoning was the energy required to run servers, computers and other computing equipment contributes to carbon dioxide generation. OK you say, so how does that impact government contracting? Well, the working group doing this study suggested that it would be acceptable to pay a higher price provided the higher priced supplier had a better GHG record than the competing bids. Likewise, a procuring office could select against a supplier that did not have a particularly good GHG record. Since this is relatively new, look for new ways to track and evaluate GHG in the near future. I suggest that you stay in tune with this as you can use it to your advantage in bidding a contract if you can prove your firm has a good GHG record. So now "going green" becomes more than a PR or goodwill gesture, it now can help you secure government contracts.
Posted by Mike Anderson on Tue, Jul 06, 2010 @ 08:00 AM
There is a lot of discussion today about the Obama administration's apparent changes in NASA and in direction for the US Space Program. The cancellation of the Constellation program is hotly debated. There has been the argument that while the cancellation of the Constellation program will definitely impact those companies invested in it's development the same money will be distributed to many more small businesses to develop our commercial space program. At first glance that may seem like a good thing but I think this will not only hurt the US Space Program but will result in fewer dollars being spent in the US. I would suggest you read the statement published by former astronaut and senator
John Glenn on June 17, 2010 regarding the changes in the space program. Senator Glenn makes quite a few good points but I think the most telling are 1) we don't have heavy lift or human lift capability with retirement of the shuttle this year & cancellation of the Constellation & 2) we will have to pay the Russians to put US astronauts into orbit for the foreseeable future. Senator Glenn points out that it costs roughly $400 Million per shuttle launch (with capacity to send 6 or 7 astronauts per mission) where we will have to pay the Russians $55.8 Million per astronaut to get to orbit. So, for a crew change of 6 in the International Space Station (which is really a US funded laboratory) it will cost NASA $335 Million. But this money is being transferred outside the US, not to US contractors as the $400 Million would be to launch the Shuttle. So a big portion of the NASA budget in the near future will be going to Russia and not to US government contractors. Why not extend the shuttle program (there is life left in the vehicles) and keep the money flowing to US government contractors? This does not even address the Constellation vs. commercial space vehicle development (those dollars will be spent in the US regardless of the choice). I think it is time we support John Glenn, the Space Shuttle program and good old fashion investment of our space dollars in the US. So let's protect the industry that we still lead the world in - space exploration. By the way, Happy Birthday to the greatest nation on earth!
Posted by Mike Anderson on Fri, Jul 02, 2010 @ 01:43 PM
On June 4, Defense Secretary Robert Gates set a deadline for Defense Department agencies to submit proposals by July 31st on how they would streamline operations to save over $100 Billion. The focus is on becoming more streamlined, to eliminate unnecessary overhead and trim excessive programs. The overall Defense Department budget is not going down but Secretary Gates wants to put more emphasis on the war efforts in Afghanistan & Iraq. He also wants to see the federal spending done more efficiently and more productively. There will be a scrutiny of programs that we have not seen over the last 10 to 15 years and without a doubt some programs will be canceled. The types of contracts to be let will change as well. Already we are seeing indications that the DoD is looking for more Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type contracts and less of the Cost Reimbursable type contracts. The FFP contract vehicle will put more pressure on the subcontractor to make sure they are profitable. In this type of a contract the government will only pay a specified amount and any over-runs will be the problem of the contractor. Now, certainly, there are some types of activities where a FFP type contract just won't work but you can bet that every Contracting Officer in the DoD will be considering how they can spend their money more wisely. The questions is, are you as a subcontractor, ready for this new challenge in the Department of Defense?
Posted by Mike Anderson on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 @ 04:03 PM
To the un-initiated, ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) as set forth by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2278) may seem like just another government regulation that isn't always watched or enforced. Nothing could be further from the truth. ITAR regulations are designed to keep America's technology advances, especially those that give our national defenses an edge, at home and out of enemy hands. The regulations are worded such that they control the "export" of this technology. The regulations also mean that "export" could involve something as seemingly simple as a foreign visitor seeing something that is controlled, even though this happens in an American facility on American soil. It also could mean a "Canadian" citizen (for example) seeing or hearing something in an American office that is controlled by the ITAR restrictions. Does this mean that you might un-knowingly violate an ITAR restriction if you have a foreign visitor in your plant? That shouldn't happen. All technology that is ITAR controlled should be appropriately marked. If you are in the business of developing new technology, then it is your responsibility to know when you may have technology that would be controlled by ITAR and take measures to both mark it as such and control it. Controls would include protecting it from being seen by foreign visitors as well as other export control measures. Recently there was a good example of the seriousness of the ITAR restrictions as you probably saw on our "Industry Update" page on this website. This local company exported some of their products, that turned out were controlled by the Munitions List, and is now facing penalties including paying a $1 Million fine and 5 years on probation. The company is have serious trouble and has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in part due to the violation of the ITAR regulations. It is always better to enlist help in researching ITAR issues or reviewing the Munitions list rather than charging ahead and hoping that "it's probably no big deal".
Posted by Mike Anderson on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 @ 08:00 AM
Well, as with anything from the government, there appears to be conflicting rules being issued. At first glance when you look at 15 U.S.C. 644 (g) (1) it requires that a minimum of 23% of the value of all federal prime contracts issued are being issued to small businesses. President Obama issued a memorandum (Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,Subject: Government Contracting, dated March 4, 2009) that called for 5 main objectives including to clarify the role of when functions should be performed by federal employees and when independent contractors may be used. When you consider this memo and read between the lines of actions by this administration it is clear that the size of the government workforce will be growing. If indeed that is the case, will it not take more of the federal contracting "pie" from small businesses? Most of the small business content has consisted of services provided to the government so by pulling more work into the government itself, this would logically have to reduce some of the small business contracting, wouldn't it? I know this is not the intent of the administration and if you ask, they will certainly say that is not the case. I rather suspect that this requirement will put more pressure on existing federal employees that are involved with the procurement of goods and services for the government, the contracting officers. As most small business people that do work with the federal government learn, the contracting officer (CO) is in control of your situation in a government contract. If the workload of the CO becomes more difficult, they will try to maximize their effectiveness by taking the path of least resistance. What this means to small business is that they must take extra care to make sure they meet the requirements of the RFQ and make the CO's job as easy as possible. This includes making sure your accounting system meets all the FAR guidelines and your indirect billing rates are up to speed.