DCAA Compliance Blog

Government Contracting News and DCAA Information for Contractors

ReliAscent® LLC is the only government contract accounting firm that specializes in all aspects of government contracting compliance.  From monthly DCAA compliant accounting services, to contract management & administration, and financial services & planning for contractors and grantees, our goal is to ensure the success of our clients, and all small business government contractors.  

In our DCAA Blog, we discuss the latest government contracting news from the Federal Government, the DCAA, and DCMA, as well as promotions offered by ReliAscent, and helpful tools and resources for contractors.

We hope you will visit and take part in the discussions on our blog on a regular basis. If you ever have any questions or would like to discuss how our experts can help, do not hesitate to contact us at any time!  

 


 

Rich Busch

Recent Posts

“Snatching Success From The Jaws of (Apparent) Defeat” - ReliAscent Featured Partner Blog (Part V)

Posted by Rich Busch on Tue, Mar 06, 2018 @ 10:43 AM

The following blog is the fifth in a series of special guest and ReliAscent partner blogs, contributed by Richard Busch of the Busch Law Firm, and Mike Anderson, of ReliAscent.  This series covers important topics ranging from an introduction to government contracting, to requests for equitable adjustments, risk management, contract change orders, and scope creep.  Additionally, our series will cover government financial assistance efforts, and how defense contractors--both small and large business (along with subcontractors)--can increase profits, improve their ability to strategically plan for the future and remain profitable.

By combining DCAA compliance and accounting expertise with defense contracting and FAR compliance legal representation and consultation, ReliAscent and Busch Law can help position contractors for financial success…

"Follow the Trail of What is Really Happening After Award, and POLICE your Competitor's Contract

Challenging your competitors contract

ATTN:  Small and medium-sized government contractors DO NOT miss a chance to still be awarded an opportunity previously awarded to your competitor.  More often than not, post award modifications to the competitor’s contract will disclose an out-of-scope change order that should have been competed.  If the modification is beyond the original general scope of the contract or outside of the terms of the original Solicitation----you have an opportunity to challenge that modification of the contract that was awarded to your competitor.   

 

Scenario

You consider your company a competitor in the Government marketplace for the Statement of Work being procured.  Nevertheless, you lost a heavily competed contract award based upon the Government’s perceived needs; yet you know the award is flawed through a combination of the factual circumstances and the Government’s actual needs.  You can see the gaping hole in the best value evaluation of the proposed performance of the awardee.  You know that a GAO review is subjective and focuses on discretion in the Government’s evaluation as stated in the procurement statutes and regulations.  In reality, the GAO’s analysis is superficial and unrealistically focused on the Government’s position.  This contract is still important to your company’s financial/technical future.

 Although compliant with the GENERAL terms of the statutes and regulations, can/how is the Government going to adjust the award to the reality of their mistakes? The actual facts and circumstances tell a different story.

 

Conclusion

You must proactively “police” your competitor’s contract for contract modifications, unilateral or bilateral, which are outside the general scope of the competition requirements and the awarded contract. 

 

“Policing” means What?

 The oversight Government Agencies will NOT review the administration of an awarded contract; including modifications.  The exception to this general rule is where you allege that a contract modification is beyond the scope of the original competition and awarded contract.

Your review of the facts must determine if, absent a valid sole-source determination, the work covered by the modification should be subject to full and open competition. In short, you must focus on:

“Is the modification, in effect, an unjustified sole source contract?”

You must determine what “material differences” are between the modified contract and the originally compete award.  Compare the modification with:

  • Extent of the any changes in the type of work;
  • Performance period;
  • Adjusted costs of performance;
  • If competed technical requirements were altered based upon the reality of the circumstances;
  • Changes in the “scope of the competition” more than changes in “scope of the contract;”
  • Do the ordered modifications alter the nature of the item that was competed and awarded;
  • Did the original Solicitation advise the offerors of the potential for these types of changes during the performance of the contract;
  • Would the field of competition be different after the modification;
  • Was the award made with the intent to modify it after award; and
  • Would you have reasonably anticipated this modification under the changes clause.

The simple initial question is whether the change is within the general scope of the competition. The terms of the solicitation and the contract are of paramount importance when compared to the language and INTENT of the modification and the overall acquisition planning process.

If properly justified and supported, your policing activities could be very effective by canceling the modification and obtaining work through the competitive process.  In addition, it may alter the way the Agency will administer the competitor’s contract and draw focus on their performance accounting.  You may get your costs of protest reimbursed AND have the Agency agree to an increase focus potential disallowance of your competitor costs.         .

 While it is true the statutes and regulation on their face may not have been violated, the facts and circumstances of the actual competition and award may create many more issues in your favor.  A thorough review of these factors are important, along with the actual accounting of the cost and should cost of performance.   This two prong approach combine to form a solid approach to “bust” the award and contract performance beyond the discretionary baseline of a normal protest. 

While the stated circumstances may cover the facts, the accounting of performance costs cannot hide the reality of changes beyond the general scope of the award.  

The team of the Busch Law Firm and ReliAscent can discover the true story if the general scope of the competition requirements and the awarded contract is now proper.  

- Richard Busch
Managing Partner, Busch Law Firm LLC

Topics: Colorado Defense Contractors, scope creep, Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA), contract change orders, How to stay profitable with defense contracts

“Requests for Equitable Adjustment – Essential in Government Contracting” - ReliAscent Featured Partner Blog (Part IV)

Posted by Rich Busch on Thu, Jan 25, 2018 @ 09:00 AM

The following blog is the fourth in a series of special guest and ReliAscent partner blogs, contributed by Richard Busch of the Busch Law Firm, and Mike Anderson, of ReliAscent.  This series covers important topics ranging from an introduction to government contracting, to requests for equitable adjustments, risk management, contract change orders, and scope creep.  Additionally, our series will cover government financial assistance efforts, and how defense contractors--both small and large business (along with subcontractors)--can increase profits, improve their ability to strategically plan for the future and remain profitable.

By combining DCAA compliance and accounting expertise with defense contracting and FAR compliance legal representation and consultation, ReliAscent and Busch Law can help position contractors for financial success…

"Maintain the benefit of the bargain during performance through requests for equitable adjustment." 

Requests for Equitable Adjustment

Government Contract Changes

There is no perfect contract.  Changes to the contract performance baseline is a common occurrence.  When contracting in the federal, state, or local government market place, the contractor must be prepared to effectively manage any changes to the negotiated performance baseline.   

Most importantly, the Government Change clause provides a  regulatory procedure to process an equitable adjustment due to a change to the work effort.  A Request for Equitable Adjustment is an administrative procedure used by the contractor to avoid a conflict and maintain the benefit of the bargain originally negotiated between the parties in an administrative action.

 

What Makes Government Contracts Unique

The Federal Acquisition Regulation Changes clause gives broad powers to the government to adjust the contract performance baseline. Good contract administration is not only important but required in order to:

  • Manage technical changes in a timely manner;
  • Avoid any misunderstandings;
  • Take mutually “agreed to” corrective actions, if necessary; and
  • Negotiate an administrative resolution without a dispute.

In that regard, the parties may mutually agree to changes considered to be part of the original work effort.  In addition, the Changes clause provides that the contractor may propose changes to the work to:

  • Gain more efficient performance;
  • Provide greater quality of the contract end product; and
  • Demonstrate a collaborative approach with their customer to achieve mission success.

The Changes clause also provides for the Government to issue a “unilateral” administrative change under specific circumstances.  It is important for the Contractor to recognize when and if the change must be bilateral and not unilateral.

Finally, this unique provision could allow the Government to order additional work within the general scope of the contract without conducting a full competition for the additional work.

 

Government Subcontractors

The Request for Equitable Adjustment from the prime contractor may include the cost of any changed work of the Subcontractor.  This “ripple effect” from Subcontractor to Prime contractor to the Government must be effectively managed.  A subcontractor Request for Equitable adjustment is a specialized process to recover compensation for additional work performed on the subcontract.  These “Pass-Through” claims must be developed and administered in such a manner to effectively recovery within the complex regulatory process of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

 

Government Contract Administration

A successful prime or government subcontractor will always administer their performance against the requirements of the original performance baseline.  The Contractor must ensure any proposed change is within the general scope of the contract and properly documented.  Accurate cost records are vital to the development of any increased costs requested. Most importantly, a Request for Equitable Adjustment is an administrative function which would allow recovery of consultant and attorney’s fees as an allowable cost.        

This process is very unique to Federal Government contracts and many contractors do not understand how to process requests for Equitable Adjustments.  This is where experience is a big factor in not only knowing when this is possible but how to do it and what to ask for when you do it.  It is not uncommon for a government contractor to rely on a consulting expert in the field to help with these requests.   A good consulting expert (like ReliAscent and The Busch Law Firm) will not only know how to process this but when to process it and how to negotiate this to achieve the optimum result for the contractor.   

- Richard Busch
Managing Partner, Busch Law Firm LLC

Topics: Colorado Defense Contractors, scope creep, Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA), contract change orders, How to stay profitable with defense contracts

“What Happened To My Profit?” - ReliAscent Featured Partner Blog (Part III)

Posted by Rich Busch on Wed, Jan 10, 2018 @ 09:36 AM

The following blog is the third in a series of special guest and ReliAscent partner blogs, contributed by Richard Busch of the Busch Law Firm, and Mike Anderson, of ReliAscent.  This series covers important topics ranging from an introduction to government contracting, to requests for equitable adjustments, risk management, contract change orders, and scope creep.  Additionally, our series will cover government financial assistance efforts, and how defense contractors--both small and large business (along with subcontractors)--can increase profits, improve their ability to strategically plan for the future and remain profitable.

By combining DCAA compliance and accounting expertise with defense contracting and FAR compliance legal representation and consultation, ReliAscent and Busch Law can help position contractors for financial success…

“Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.”  - Will Rogers.

Sitting on the tracks.jpg

Unmanaged “Creep?”…Make Informed Decisions and Manage the Work Effort

The meaning of Mr. Roger’s quote is especially important to a contract administrator for many reasons.  The administration of a government contract, as a prime or subcontractor, is a difficult balancing act between strict compliance of your contract obligations, pleasing the government client, balancing the budget, and timely performance—to name a few.  Even if you think you are “on the right track”---you must always be performance vigilant.  As Mr. Rogers inferred---being proactive in the administration of the work effort is of paramount importance. Successful performance, no matter what type of contract, Fixed Price or Cost Reimbursement, requires keen oversight of performance and cost control. 

The concern is NOT just with Government attempts to increase the level of effort; but the contractor MUST police its own actions.   Contractors may unknowingly degrade their profits or adversely affect the Government’s budget by not controlling their own performance through unilateral contractor actions that increase the cost of performance that may not be reimbursed.  Simply, being on the “right track” can still negatively affect profit if the contract performance contains unmanaged task “creep” cause by either contract party.

 

No Such Thing as a Perfect Contract---“Position Determines Perspective”

Whenever two or more people with separate interests are involved, there is a strong likelihood there may be different goals for the successful accomplishment of the contract work effort.  Real time changes thought to be needed to obtain the desired results; the cost of performance may “creep” beyond the initial understandings of the parties.  Take the time to proactively discuss and agree, as much as possible, on what is successful contract performance AND what the cost of performance should be expected.

 

Complete Understanding the Statement of Work

When creating a cost of performance management system, you must start with the “scope” of the contract.  If the initial contract “scope” is poorly defined, performance creep and increased costs will most likely result in subtle changes. Not all scope “creep” is readily apparent.  You may not recognize the change or fail to give it any thought; just like recording your daily expenses normally “shock” most people when they learn how their money is spent.  A “vague” SOW hurts cost control by opening the door to work scope creep.  Simply, you must determine what you are contractually bound to do and what the parties agree is success?  Comparing reality to the contractual performance baseline determines the profit on the work effort.

 

Type of Contract is NOT Always a Factor for Profit

The parties must determine whether the “scope” of the Statement of Work can be completed or is only a “level of effort” expected for successful contract performance?  In addition, is the Statement of Work based upon a firm government design or is the final product described through only performance criteria with little design?  Obligations and the allocations of risk defined by the Type of Contract must be understood and appreciated before the work effort is agreed upon.  Those understandings create the foundation to perform the SOW and achieve the profit expected. While these factors seem premature when discussing “profit,” these factors are the basis for your profit.

 

Assumption of Risk

Fixed Price contracts always obligate the contractor to accept the risk for the cost of performance and any resulting profit.   It is imperative to clearly understand the work effort, the risks of completion, contingencies, and the overall performance baseline. To avoid “scope” creep and the increased costs of performance in time or effort, the contract must be administered in a deliberate fashion.  Increased work effort, delays, uncalled for inspections, etc. must be identified and documented as soon as possible and a decision made whether you will accept its impact on the cost of performance or whether a change order is appropriate.

Cost Reimbursement contract performance can also affect the profit factor.  It is incorrect to think that just because all allowable costs are reimbursement, the fee cannot be adversely affected.  The amount of fee recovered is still measured by contract work effort.   Fee is NOT profit.  In reality, the “fee” may be proportionally decreased by the increases in time of performance, costs, and work effort that result from scope “creep” and its increased effort/time for performance.  The contractor receives less profit from scope “creep.”  A contractor is mistaken if they think the risk allocation in a cost reimbursement contract does not impact profit due to its failure to manage the costs of performance.

 

Who is Responsible for the Cost Growth and Its Effect on Profit?

The Government has the obligation to control costs; but still conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness.  The Contractor must help the Government with those obligations.  In the recovery for scope ‘creep” to the performance baseline, the Contractor must not only prove “entitlement” but also “quantum.” Managing risk through sound cost accounting and performance oversight, along with documented contract administration, is the focal point for successful contract performance.  As William Arthur Ward stated, “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”  The Contractor must recognize the difference in and balance the need for “risk avoidance” verses “risk management.”

So, what does all this mean for the contractor that is trying to make a profit?  It means that managing a Federal Government contract is not just as simple as controlling one aspect, but rather, knowing what your contractual obligations are and managing all the elements of the performance baseline agreed upon by the parties.  How can the contractor insure that they make money, especially when the government or the contractor can unwittingly affect the profit margin on contracts?  The answer is experience.  Experience in how the “game” is played, as well as many years’ experience in playing the game within the rules.  Many businesses don’t have this expertise readily available within their organization.  It is always cost effective to consult the experts (like ReliAscent and The Busch Law Firm) that deal in the successful administration of government contracts in conjunction with the successful completion of the technical performance.  Corporate Management, contract administration, cost control consultants, legal considerations, and technical supervision, are integral parts of understanding how to successfully perform a government contract; especially on how to maintain your profit goals.

- Richard Busch
Managing Partner, Busch Law Firm LLC

 

Coming up: in part IV, “Request For Equitable Adjustment,” Rich discuss how contractors can make a money-losing contract profitable again. This piece is a must-read for small and large federal contractors alike.

Topics: Colorado Defense Contractors, scope creep, Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA), contract change orders, How to stay profitable with defense contracts

“Should We Do It?” - ReliAscent Featured Partner Blog (Part II)

Posted by Rich Busch on Thu, Nov 30, 2017 @ 01:39 PM

The following blog is the second in a series of special guest and ReliAscent partner blogs, contributed by Richard Busch of the Busch Law Firm, and Mike Anderson, of ReliAscent.  This series covers important topics ranging from an introduction to government contracting, to requests for equitable adjustments, risk management, contract change orders, and scope creep.  Additionally, our series will cover government financial assistance efforts, and how defense contractors--both small and large business (along with subcontractors)--can increase profits, improve their ability to strategically plan for the future and remain profitable.

By combining DCAA compliance and accounting expertise with defense contracting and FAR compliance legal representation and consultation, ReliAscent and Busch Law can help position contractors for financial success…

"The Key to Wisdom is Knowing All the Right Questions." - John A. Simone, Sr.

jump.jpg 

Should We Get Involved In the Government Marketplace?

The Federal Government spends trillions of dollars annually for a wide range of goods and services to meet mission needs.   Current events indicate that one potential factor in the economy will include stable or increasing government procurement budgets.  Construction and construction-related activity is a very large part of the Government’s budget and recovery plans.  In addition, along with the current depletion of the spare parts inventory for the military, technology advancements require up to date development programs and a consistent focus on maintaining our lead in state of the art equipment.   Finally, the Government has become increasingly reliant on industry and the commercial markets to provide the technical expertise to advance the infrastructure and the required solutions for mission success. 

While many of the largest defense companies and government contractors have an operational presence in Colorado, the majority of existing defense/government construction projects, contracting, and research/development opportunities remain untapped by Colorado businesses. The doors are opening, particularly in the area of construction, remodeling and refurbishment projects. High technology practice areas in Colorado include, but are not limited to: energy and construction; nanotechnology; space; software development. Colorado businesses, as well as the state legislature, are realizing the vast potential in the government marketplace and the unique position Colorado has in becoming a primary state to provide the government marketplace with the supplies and services needed to successfully accomplish its mission. 

Doing business in the Federal or State marketplace has changed over the years.   Past difficulties have been eliminated with the new focus on the commercial contractor and smaller businesses.  Please consider the following FAQs to better understand the current opportunities: 

Q: If a business entity was considering entering the government marketplace and you could give them just one piece of advice, what would it be?

A: Do it right! The concept is simple, but the execution can be more complex if a company attempts to perform in the government marketplace without the experience or advice necessary to succeed.  Unique skills are needed because the government marketplace is a different forum than the commercial market. A company must recognize, understand and prepare for the differences. In order to take advantage of the many opportunities when dealing with the government, the company must be prepared to understand there are differences, how those differences can be “handled”, and that the potential is worth the focus.  In that regard, it is crucial to have experienced, qualified professionals advising you about those unique requirements when dealing with the government—contract administrators, accountants, quality and marketing experts, and legal professionals. It may not always be necessary to hire people experienced in these areas, but a company should have such advisors available as needed.

 

Q: Once a company wins a government contract or is awarded an order, what focus should they have in completing their obligation?

A: It’s important to remember that a company’s “past performance” is not just a concept, but rather an important element of success. While there is no such thing as a perfect contract, careful administration, timely performance, quality work and accurate accounting are essential to securing an “outstanding” performance evaluation. The manner in which a company performs and how its contracts are administered is a primary factor the government considers when awarding new opportunities. Exercising sound business judgment, even on those occasions when the company must seek an equitable adjustment or relief from the contracting officer, is important in avoiding and/or resolving disputes over the performance of the contract. Remember, the government has responsibilities under the contract as well and must be held accountable.  If approached in a business-like manner and supported by the guiding principles in the regulations, executive orders and statutes, the Government generally appreciates an attempt to resolve issues at the lowest level and in the quickest amount of time.

 

Q: Is it important to understand the commercial-item procurement initiative when dealing with the government?

A: Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 provides guidelines for the purchase of “commercial” supplies and services. Briefly, the regulation states a preference for the acquisition of commercial items and that commercial items shall be acquired to meet the needs of the agency whenever they are available. In addition, the regulation requires prime contractors and subcontractors at all tiers to incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, commercial items as components of items supplied to the government agency. This initiative is very important for any business participating in or considering entering the government marketplace. Having a product or service designated as “commercial” affects intellectual property rights, accounting audits, quality programs, socioeconomic requirements and the imposition of most of the normally required terms and conditions.  The Government favors “commercial” items because they know that pricing is driven to the most favorable level possible by market competition and as such they don’t need to spend extra effort justifying that they are receiving a fair and reasonable price. 

 

Q: Obviously contract terms and conditions are important, but how closely should contracts be reviewed?

A: As with all legal documents, it is important to understand the terms you are committing to and your responsibilities under the contract. In addition, over-incorporation of clauses only creates opportunity for increased spending and a forum for failure. In one situation our client, a small subcontractor on a major program, was given flow-down terms and conditions from the large prime contractor. We were requested to review these flow-down clauses and comment on the applicability of the requirements. Although the subcontractor was on the prime’s proposal team, the prime flowed down more than 115 contract provisions. Upon review, we found only a limited number of clauses that were mandatory due to the unique status of dealing with the Government and 14 clauses that would be acceptable if appropriately modified to support the prime contractor’s responsibilities to the government. The rest of the clauses did not apply or were just not appropriate. Always review the clauses and negotiate the final contract as much as possible. Balance your review by recognizing acceptable risks, managing those risks, and keeping in mind your goals in acquiring and performing the contract.

 

Q: What are some important considerations when establishing the Prime-Subcontractor relationships?

A: A company’s approach to entering the realm of government contracts should include various relationships with prime contractors. Those contractual relationships could include not only the traditional subcontract, but also teaming arrangements, joint ventures and mentor-protégé programs. Be thorough and proactive in the development of such relationships. Ensure that there is an understanding in terms of the focus and goals to be achieved and the responsibilities assigned to each party. Understand billing, risk allocation, intellectual property issues, marketing, and quality issues between the contract parties. Most important, clearly identify the roles and goals of the parties. Finally, understand and limit the terms and conditions necessary to successfully perform the contract.

 

Q: How should the contractor handle a dispute with the government or prime over contract award or performance?

A: There are different approaches to resolving disputes with the government or prime over a contract award or performance. In my opinion, it is most important not to be arbitrary and to understand that there is a certain cost to performing any business obligation. Management must balance the rights supplied under the contract with the importance of the company’s relationship with its customer. Generally, my experience has been that the government understands that parties to a contract may have a dispute—there is no perfect contract. While there are no guarantees, most government officials understand that it is “just business” as long as the issues are presented in a business-like approach. A professional approach goes a long way toward resolving issues and maintaining a high past performance rating.

Whatever the level of the dispute, the contractor must ensure that the claim is drafted well and fully supported. While there are times that demand a more formal resolution technique, I am a firm believer in trying to resolve issues through unassisted negotiation or formal mediation. There are a number of government directives that encourage alternative dispute resolutions between parties; take advantage of those directives as much as possible (it’s just good customer relations)

 

Coming up: in part III, “What Happened to my Profit?,” Rich discuss how factors like scope creep, the type of contract, and risk, can chip away at your bottom line. This piece is a must-read for small and large federal contractors alike.

Topics: Colorado Defense Contractors, Government Contractors, Commercial Pricing DoD, doing business with the federal government, commercial item procurement, government contract reviews

“If You Are a Commercial Contractor, Please Consider This!” - ReliAscent Featured Partner Blog (Part I)

Posted by Rich Busch on Wed, Nov 08, 2017 @ 10:31 AM

The following blog is the first in a series of special guest and ReliAscent partner blogs, contributed by Richard Busch of the Busch Law Firm, and Mike Anderson, of ReliAscent.  This series will cover important topics ranging from an introduction to government contracting, to requests for equitable adjustments, risk management, contract change orders, and scope creep.  It will also cover government financial assistance efforts, and how defense contractors--both small and large business (along with subcontractors)--can increase profits, improve their ability to strategically plan for the future and remain profitable.

ReliAscent and the Busch Law Firm are proud to announce this synergistic relationship. We think this team will bring value to our clients and defense contractors across the country through the combination of our individual expertise and a blend of the administration and legal guidance to all phases of dealing in the government marketplace. By combining DCAA compliance and accounting expertise with defense contracting and FAR compliance legal representation and consultation, ReliAscent and Busch Law can help position contractors for financial success…

Government Contracting

 Part I - "If You Are a Commercial Contractor, Please Consider This!”

Why should an otherwise commercial company consider entering the Federal Government market place as a prime contractor, vendor, or subcontractor at any level?  

Over the last five years, the government has recognized a shift in the direction to advance business solutions.  Due to the growth in technology, the government has determined that the commercial business sector must be the primary force to develop and provide the products and services they need to achieve society’s goals.  Consequently, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and the individual agency supplements have been revised to become much more “commercial” friendly in most situations.   If the potential contractor is a “commercial” business engaged in supplying commercial products or services, many of the complex requirements simply do not apply.  Except for a very limited number of government unique provisions, most clauses are negotiable. The following are some general points a commercial business should consider:

  • Just over $640B DoD 2018 proposed spending plan (total government budgets much bigger)
  • Limited government audit rights for commercial companies with commercial products
  • Terms and conditions more conducive to commercial application (subject to the unique mission of the government)
  • Over $41 Billion on the GSA Schedules for commercial products
  • Favorable research and development terms if negotiated correctly
  • Commercial pricing based on the market----- (Government does request the best commercial prices under like terms and conditions)
  • “Other Transaction” commercial type contracts may be available
  • Electronic Payment with automatic interest on due and payable amounts for late payments
  • Commercial markets highlight products purchased by the government due to quality verifications
  • Joint venture, teaming arrangements, and subcontract opportunities in addition to prime status purchases
  • Retention of license rights or patents if negotiated correctly on new products or modified products using government money

The government market sector has vast potential for a company that has the resources and products/services to benefit the goals of the government.  If a company is considering doing business with the government, the effort must be based on one simple principle---DO IT RIGHT!  

Bottom Line:  There is a great market potential for a “responsible” company that focuses on performing in the “right” way.

 

Coming Up: in part II, “Should We Do It?,” Rich introduces a series of important Q&A’s for government contractors to consider. From contract reviews, to establishing subcontracts, and how to handle disputes with the Federal Government, this piece is a must-read for small and large businesses alike.

Topics: Colorado Defense Contractors, Government Contractors, Commercial Pricing DoD, doing business with the federal government