"•
)
l»l >nlrit t;
10 IOI 11. DIRK 1 1 m/ 1\DVItRHt1l)
II GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE f«J" '. of .ail i/tmtal Soi ,
TOTAL
EST COST
$4,700
$4 7nn
1
DEFER
ENCE
$ 398 |
-
40
$9,538
I J ROYALTIES ' , _
13 /o/^//•^//^M///J('M/ '£ncooi
97 t JJO (
U FEE OR PROFIT 1Q°£ gj^
IS IOI 11 mill
-------
EXAMPLE
i 1hi» propoul it lubmmrd tor ut* m ionne<.don with *nd m rrspnn%« to (t)enrtbr Rf-P r/«
•ind rcftfCtv our bcsc
of the. dJlr, in jitordjiut- «* nh tht ln*irut tiuru in OflWor* and tht Footnotes wJmh tull«m
TYPED NAME AND TITLE
Buddy Linton, President
| NAME OF FIRM
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
April 14, 1975
EXHIBIT A-SUPPORTING SCHEDULE
'/ »""•«• '/"»" » "«
i Travel - 2 trips - Crystal City to Denver
EST COST <%>
$ 398.00
I HAS ANY EXECUTIVE AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER
GOVERNMENT PRIME CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS'
[""I YES P] NO I If Hi. idlnlifl bt/ou I
NAME AND ADDRESS Or REVIEWING OFFICE AND INDIVIDUAL
TELEPHONE NUMBER/EXTENSION
WILL YOU «OUI«I THf USE Of ANY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN THE PERFOKMANCE OF THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT'
l_J *E* Ll ***^ f'/ n1' '^»»"A o« rettrtt n ADVANCE PAYMENTS Q] PROGRESS PAYMENTS o« Q GUARANTEED LOANS
IV DO YOU NOW HOLD ANY CONTRACT (Or do
PROPOSED CONTRACT?
Q] YES Q) NO {If til. idmlift /
halt jnv ,ndtp/ flk&Dl projtili I fO« THE SAME O« SIMIIAK WOKK CAUED FOS BY THIS
V DOES THIS COST SUMMARY CONFORM WITH THt COST PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN AGENCY REGULATIONS'
j] YES [~J NO (II nt). t\pl^in on rri tnt or ttpurjtt p.l^t i
Rttirte /or tnitruitiom and / r/vtHol
OPTIONAI FORM 60 ( 10-"l )
26
-------
APPENDIX 1. ADEQUACY OF THE GRANT APPLICANTS ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES
The primary requirement for the competent business management of
any project is a good accounting system. There are seven major areas which
should be of primary concern to the reviewer. These are defined below:
• Accounting Records
In order to have an accounting system, there must be records of
all financial transactions. The system should document all receipt
and disbursement transactions, including explanations and identifying
codes (e.g., invoice number) on a chronological basis. It should also
group them by type of account (e.g., expense, asset) and by individual
account (e.g., Board of Supervisors payroll, communications expense.)
Accounts should be set up in such a way as to identify each cost with
a cost center and cost objective in the form of a task or subtask. A
cost center may be an organizational unit, a function, or even an item
of expense. Its purpose is to collect costs on a functional basis.
Thus, accounts might be divided into more than one cost center
(e.g., payroll expense might be distributed into several departments)
and cost centers may have more than one account (e.g., the accounting
department's costs might include payroll expense, supplies, and other
accounts.) An important project management objective of accounting
records is the derivation of information regarding actual vs. budgeted
costs by project task and by performing organization.
All entries in the chronological and account groupings should be
cross-referenced in some way. Furthermore, at least one of the
groupings should be cross-referenced to the supporting documents.
• Supporting Documents
Every entry in the accounting records should be supported by a
document of some sort. This could be a document from outside the
grantee's office, as in the case of an invoice, or it could be an
internally generated document, as in the case of payroll. In many
cases, several documents will support a single transaction. For
instance, a purchase of materials should have a purchase request,
purchase order, and receiving report in addition to an invoice. It
might also involve requests for proposal, contracts, advisory board
resolution, progress reports, and progress payments. The key is that
the files of supporting documents should contain all information
necessary to explain every transaction completely, and should be cross-
referenced in such a way that transactions can be traced from any
document dealing with the transaction back to the initiation of that
transaction and forwarded to the entry or entries concerned with that
transaction.
27
-------
• Traceability
Traceability, which is also referred to as an audit trail, is
composed of two elements. The first is mechanical in nature. All
entries in a grouping should be traceable to corresponding entries
in other groupings, and to all supporting documents. This requires
a good filing systeir. based on reference codes for each entry and
document. In a small system, codes may not need to be as detailed,
due to the lower volume of transactions, but in almost all systems
referencing based solely on a date or name will eventually prove
cumbersome, inefficient, and probably inadequate. Sequential
numerical codes are usually best, not only for ease of referencing,
but also for internal control.
The second element of traceability is the logic behind the trans-
action. One should be able to determine not only what was done, but
why it was done. It is here that written procedures become important.
Some companies and governmental units survive without them, however,
they constantly experience employee turnover, changes in circumstances,
exceptions to the unwritten rules, and lose internal control. A
grantee should have or should prepare complete procedures for handling
grant funds.
• Allowable vs. Unallowable Costs
The preceeding three areas concerned themselves with the basic
set-up of an accounting system. The next two areas will deal with
functions within the system. The system must be able to segregate
allowable and unallowable costs if the grantee is to properly utilize
his grant money. There are two basic guidelines on allowability. The
first is a general guideline for all grants: Federal Management
Circular (FMC) 74-4. The second guideline deals mainly with further
unallowable expenses: EPA Grant Regulations, 40 CFR 35.1062. The
cost analysis section of this Handbook itemizes costs which are unal-
lowable under Section 208. Unallowable costs should be recorded in
separate accounts and the supporting documents and traceability of
unallowable costs should be equal to that of allowable costs.
» Direct vs. Indirect Costs
In the area of allowable costs, a further distinction must be made
between direct, and indirect costs. All costs should be contained in
some cost center, however, some cost centers contain costs which benefit
other cost centers. For example, the costs of the payroll department
would benefit all other cost centers which have a payroll. This type of
cost center can be referenced to as a secondary cost center. The primary
cost centers are the 208 project office and supporting program functions.
Ultimately, all costs will be identified with or allocated to a primary
cost center. Direct costs are those which can be identified directly to
a primary cost center. They may have been entered in that cost center
initially, or they may have been contained in a secondary cost center
whose costs could be identified to one or more primary cost centers.
28
-------
Accounting System and Procedures, Continued.
Indirect costs are those which cannot be identified to a particular
primary center. They must, therefore, be allocated to primary centers
using a base that provides an equitable cost distribution. The key
here is the ability of the accounting system to segregate all costs
into cost centers, which can be classified as direct or indirect, and
to then identify or allocate them to a primary cost center.
i Internal Control
Internal control is the means by which the accounting system is
regulated. It serves not only to verify that the numbers are accurate,
but also to assure management that proper procedures are being followed
with respect to receipts and disbursements. Some of the elements of
internal control are written procedures concerning how things are done
and who has the responsibility for approving and for doing them,
written approval at each major step of the process and an internal audit
to verify that the procedures are being followed. For example, the
disbursing function might require that an invoice be attached to a copy
of the purchase order and receiving report and be initialed for payment
by the supervisor of the department that purchased the goods before any
funds can be disbursed. This procedure would then be audited at least
once a year by examining invoices at random to see if the copies had
been attached and the invoice initialed.
Internal controls may be implemented differently for each grantee,
but each grantee should have controls which act to check the functioning
of the system automatically and which insure that all major transactions,
expecially those concerned with cash, have checks and balances on the
individuals involved. It should also be remembered that contractors hired
by the grantee should be supervised, not only with respect to their work,
but also with respect to their accounting for the costs of that work.
This supervision should also be provided for as a part of the grantee's
internal control system. For example, costs of contractors efforts by
task should be recorded and should have an audit trail which the grantee
could examine in detail if the contract was significant in amount.
0 Accounting Reports
Accounting reports are the ultimate product of an accounting system
and are often the least planned aspect of the system. This applies more
to internal reports than to external reports due to the fact that the
form of many external reports are prescribed. The grantee should realize
that the data which must be reported to outside sources is not always the
data which is required for management internally. Like internal control,
reports will vary from grantee to grantee. The keys here are simplicity,
comparability, and thought. Simplicity refers to the elimination of
unneeded numbers, the rounding off of unneeded digits, and the clarifica-
tion of format. Comparability refers to consistency between current and
past reports or among the reports of different divisions and to the
existence of data on the current report which enables ready comparisons
with prior years (e.g., percent change from last year.)
The constant question must be: has the grantee given sufficient
thought to his plans for the accounting system? It should be based
on his analysis of his needs and resources, rather than on a
standard system copied from a book. The thing to look for is an
understanding of those needs and an analysis of how the accounting
system will fulfill them.
TO
-------
APPENDIX 2. ADEQUACY OF GRANTEE'S PROCUREMENT SYSTEM
AND PROCEDURES
« Introduction
The examination of a grantee's procurement system and procedures
is necessary to ensure good business practices and to verify compliance
with federal statutes and regulations and EPA policy set forth in Federal
Management Circular 74-7, Attachment 0 (FMC 74-7, Att. 0) attached, 40
CFR 30, 33 and 35.1050, and EPA Program Guidance Memorandum AM-6.
A subagreement is a written agreement between a grantee and third
party for the furnishing of services or supplies necessary to complete
the project for which a grant was awarded. Since EPA does not permit
subgrants, subagreements include only procurement which result in con-
tracts purchase orders, and interagency agreements. (CFR 30, 1000-19
with interagency agreements added per CFR 35.1054-2).
» Review and Approval Requirements
Audit of a grantee's procurement procedures is not required prior
to the approval of a grant application. EPA Section 208 Grant Program
Guidance Memorandum AM-6 establishes requirement for grantee implementa-
tion of adequate procurement procedures for audit by EPA.
One objective of auditing and determining the adequacy of a
grantee's procurement system is to permit EPA to eventually delegate
approvals of certain levels of procurements to the grantee.
EPA draft of 40 CFR 33.22 requires prior written approval of the
EPA project officer for all subagreements in excess of $100,000 and each
amendment to a subagreement in excess of $100,000.
The following checklist items and discussion points are oriented
to the corresponding standards set forth in FMC 74-7 Att. 0 attached
and provides a basis for reviewing the adequacy of a grantee's procure-
ment system and procedures. (The review of individual procurements is
addressed in the main body of this handbook.)
» Grantee Contractual Responsibility (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, para. 2)
Are there any contractual provisions which the grantee specifies
for incorporation in contracts which give, a contractor under a grant
recourse to EPA?
- If so, the procurement system does not meet
the standard and such contractual provisions
should be deleted before system approval.
30
-------
* Procurement Approval Authority
Does the grantee have documented designated authorities for
approving procurements under EPA grants?
If the grantee has delegated procurement approval authorities,
are such authorities documented and clearly traceable upward to a
responsible grantee official?
If approval authority is delegated, do the delegations include
consideration of:
- responsibility, i.e., to ensure a maximum
of competitive procurements;
- dollar levels authorized for approval;
- necessity of executive level approval of
major procurements; and
- non-competitive procurements?
• Authority to Contract
Is there a designated focal point in the grantee's organization
with authority to contract, i.e., a purchasing agent, buyer, contracting
official, purchasing official, or equivalent titled person?
Does the responsible person report to the executive level to en-
sure good business practices are exercised in management decisions
regarding procurements?
• Grantee's Procurement Regulations (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, para. 3)
Have procurement regulations been adopted by the grantee which
have received prior approval by a Federal department or agency?
- If so, which department or agency and when?
If the grantee's procurement procedures have not had prior approval,
the review by the EPA regional office should address the specifics of
this checklist and in general answer the following questions:
Do the grantee's procurement standards and procedures meet the
required minimums established by the requirements contained in this
section which reflect the requirements of current Federal law and exe-
cutive orders.
- If not, what are the deficient areas?
- What actions are being taken or can be
taken to meet the minimum requirements?
- Who has the action responsibility and
what is the schedule for completing
necessary actions?
31
-------
Procurement System and Procedures, Continued.
• Standards of Conduct (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, para. 3a)
Has the.grantee established and promulgated a code or standards
of conduct which is directive upon all GOG personnel who may be involved
in any aspect of contracting and expending Federal grant funds?
- Are penalties for violation included in
the code or standard?
Does the code or standard guard against any action which might
result in, or create the appearance of:
Using an official position for private
gain?
- Giving preferential treatment to any person
or contractor?
- Losing complete independence or impartiality?
- Making an official decision outside official
channels?
- Affecting adversely the confidence of the
public in the integrity of the government
or the program?
* Competition (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, para. 3b)
There are three basic methods of procurement: public advertising,
competitive negotiation, and non-competitive negotiation. Public ad-
vertising is preferred, negotiated procurements: are permitted under
certain circumstances. A cost and price analysis becomes an essential
element to be considered in negotiated procurements. Non-competitive
procruements, due to their very nature of being void of competition,
are to be avoided.
Does the grantee's procurement standards and procedures give recog-
nition to the requirement for competition?
Are criteria established for the use of formal advertising?, i.e.,
- complete sufficient explicit specifications
(or purchase description(s));
stable requirements not likely to change;
32
-------
two or more identified capable sources
willing to bid;
time requirements necessary to carry out
necessary procedures?
Are circumstances permitting negotiated procurements well defined
in the grantee's procedures?
- What are the justification requirements?
Are they consistent with the exceptions
referenced in FMC 74-7?
- Are the approval channels well defined?
Are cost and price analyses of negotiated procurement required?
- Are the procedures adequate?
Does the grantee's procedures require all negotiated procurements
over $50,000 to be forwarded to an EPA regional office for cost analy-
sis per section 208 EPA Program Guidance Memorandum AM-6?
Are procedures and criteria established for non-competitive
procurements?
- Is the approval authority at the
grantee's executive level? For what
dollar level?
- Are procedures established to acquire EPA
approval? For what dollar level with EPA
approved procurement procedures? Without
EPA approved procedures?
How does the grantee's procedures and/or contract provisions
guard against organizational conflicts of interest or non-competitive
practices among contractors? Such standard clauses included in the
Federal Procurement Regulations as "Covenant Against Contingent Fees",
"Officials not to Benefit", and "Gratuities" are most appropriate.
• Approval of Procurement Requirements (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, para.
When considering the necessity for a procurement, grantee officials
should validate the requirement with respect to need and extent, ensure
that the requirement is not duplicative, be certain that the task cannot
be accomplished by personnel within the grantee's organization, and be
confident that the requirement cannot be fulfilled using other available
sources.
33
-------
Procurement System and Procedures, Continued.
There are many situations in which the government's equipment re-
quirements may be more economically filled by lease than by purchase.
This is particularly true in the case of certain expensive commercial
equipments. The decision to lease rather than purchase must be made
on a case-by-case basis.
Does the grantee have documented procedures and criteria for
establishing procurement requirements?
Are there clear channels of authority for review and approval
of procurement requirements?
Do the documented procedures and criteria enhance or restrict
competitive procurement practices?
Are lease vs. buy evaluation criteria established?
Are lease vs. buy analyses performed? Are such analyses reviewed
and determination made at the grantee executive level?
• Statements of Requirements (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, Para. 3c(2))
The statement of technical requirements is normally composed of
the description, or specification, of the requirement (tasks, materials,
services) which scopes the contractor's effort and sets forth in respon-
sibilities and authorities, a delivery schedule and a description of the
data to be delivered by the contractor.
Do the procurement procedures or other grantee guidance documenta-
tion include instructions for the technical and managerial personnel in
the preparation of technical requirements for procurements?
, Small and Minority-Owned Businesses (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, Para.
3c(3))
Positive efforts may include small business and minority set-asides,
and should include, where feasible, the breakout of work that could be
readily handled by small business or minority firms.
34
-------
Are there procedures established for aggressively pursuing the
utilization of small and minority-owned businesses?
• Choice of Contract Type (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, Para. 3c(4))
Procurement procedures should include guidelines for the selection
of the type of contract most appropriate for the requirement and con-
sideration for good business practices. For example, cost reimburse-
ment contracts are low risk for the contractor and therefore should
bear a lower fee or profit. In contrast, fixed price contracts shift
risks to the contractor and therefore should be accompanied by higher
profits.
Do the grantee's procurement procedures require an analysis of
relevant factors such as those which follow in the determination of the
sost appropriate contract type? Typical factors for consideration in-
clude:
- the type and complexity of the item or
service being contracted for;
the urgency of the requirement;
- the degree of competition present;
- the difficulty of estimating performance
costs because of the absence of definitive
specifications, the lack of experience or
the instability of requirements;
- the relationship of risk and profit; and
- the extent and amount of subcontracting
anticipated.
One form of cost contract is against EPA policy. This is the cost-
plus-a-percentage-of-cost arrangement. Under it the contractor receives
payment for the costs of performance, plus a specified percentage of
such actual costs as a fee. Its undesirable feature is the automatic
increase in the fee as costs increase under the contract. The cost-
plus-fixed-fee arrangement differs in that a fixed dollar value of fee
is established with consideration of the estimated cost of performance
prior to the actual performance.
35
-------
Procurement System and Procedures, Continued.
Do the procurement standards and procedures preclude the use of
cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contracts?
f Publically Advertised Procurement (FMC 74-7, App. 0, Para. 3c(5)
revised to raise $2,500 to $10,000)
The intent of publically advertised procurements is to minimize
the application of personal subjective judgements to the procurement
award process and thus avoid any doubts as to the integrity of the
grantee in the expenditure of public funds.
The prerequisites for public advertising are quite specific and
critical to successful use of the method. The prerequisites include:
- adequate specifications;
- adequate competition;
- adequate time for the preparation of
complete specifications and solicitation
documents;
- award on the basis of low price;
responsible contractor;
- responsive contractor; and
- firm fixed price contract.
Do the procurement standards give preference to formal advertised
procurements?
Do the procurement procedures address the prerequisites for use
of formal advertising and specify the steps through this highly disci-
plined process?
Are methods included for determining a contractor's responsibility?
How is adequate competition assured? Are prospective bidder lists
maintained or available for the grantee's use?
• Circumstances Permitting Negotiations (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, Para.
3c(6) with dollar levels revised)
Justification for use of the competitive negotiated procurement
method in lieu of the public advertised method should be documented,
reviewed, and approved by an appropriate grantee official and retained
in the procurement file. When proposed procurements requiring EPA
approval are submitted, the justification for using a negotiated pro-
curement must be submitted. Similarly, if non-competitive procurements
-------
are proposed, approval of the documented justification by a grantee official
is required prior to the submittal to EPA for approval.
Do the grantee's procurement procedures recognize the limitations
permitted for the use of negotiated procurements?
Does the grantee have procedures established which require justi-
fications to be prepared and approved before using negotiated procure-
ments and procurring on a non-competitive basis?
Do the grantee's procedures specify the levels of negotiated and
non-competitive procurements which require EPA approval?
Do the grantee's procedures require cost/price analysis to be per-
formed on all negotiated procurements?
Do the grantee's procedures emphasis the necessity to obtain
competition in negotiated procurements to the maximum extent practicable?
Does the grantee have procedures establshed for conducting cost/
price analysis?
Are the grantee's approval authorities clearly designated?
Are the responsibilities clearly assigned for preparing Justifica-
tions and for conducting cost/price analysis?
Are the approved Justification retained in the contract files?
• Responsible Contractor Determination (FMC 74-7, Atu. 0, Para.
3c(7)
A bidder is considered responsible when the grantee has established
that he has:
- the technical capability to perform;
- financial capability to obtain necessary
resources;
- manpower required to perform;
- a record of having net schedules, not
exceeding estimated costs and satisfactory
technical performance;
37
-------
Procurement System and Procedures, Continued.
- a satisfactory record of integrity and
business ethics; and
be otherwise qualified and eligible to
receive award under applicable public
policy laws and regulations such as
Equal Opportunity, etc.
Does the grantee have adequate procedures for determining whether
or not a contractor is responsible?
- Are pre-award surveys conducted?
- Are the normal sources of necessary
information listed?
Do the grantee's procedures include the requirement for acquiring
subcontracting authorization from EPA prior to authorizing a contractor
to let subcontracts over $10,000?
, Contract Records (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, Para. 3c(8) with dollar
level revised.)
Does the grantee maintain records for each procurement which in-
cludes as a minimum:
- the contract;
contractor selection;
- justification for use of negotiation in
lieu of formal advertising;
- justification for non-competitive procure-
ment;
- results of bidder's responsibility determin-
at ion;
cost/price analysis upon which negotiations
were based (or a record of all bids if formal
advertising were used); and
- a memorandum of negotiation regarding the
cost or price negotiated1!
• Contract Administration (FMC 74-7, Att. 0, Para. 3c(9))
Is there a person within the grantee's organization assigned the
responsibility for assuring conformance with the terms, conditions, and
specifications of the contract (i.e., for contract administration)?
-------
- Are there documented policies and proce-
dures?
- Do they cover the total requirements or
the contract?
- Are their practices consistent with their
policies and procedures?
Is there a person with grantee's organization assigned the respon-
sibility for expediting and timely follow-up of all deliveries (i.e.,
for project monitoring)?
- Are there documented policies and pro-
cedures?
- Are their practices consistent with their
policies and procedures?
Is the contractor's progress examined and evaluated periodically?
Are there periodic meetings with the contractor to review status and
problems?
Is the contractor's planned progress and planned expenditures
comparatively evaluated with actual progress and actual expenditures?
Are inspections, acceptances, and approvals of contractor deli-
veries performed in accord with established procedures against contractual
requirements?
Is a system established for review of contractor's requests for
payments in comparison with progress prior to payment? Are contractors
paid promptly by the grantee?
Are the roles of the persons authorized to commit the grantee and
those responsible for monitoring a contractor's technical performance
clearly delineated? Are the practices consistent with such delineations?
Are the procedures established to cover such contingencies as:
- Delivery delinquencies?
Lack of progress?
- Termination for default?
- Termination for convenience?
- Disputes?
39
-------
Procurement System and Procedures, Continued.
Are there provisions to ensure that all work under the contract has
been completed and deliveries made?
Are there procedures to ensure that work is adequately inspected
and accepted by the grantee prior to final payment?
Are there procedures to ensure that all costs incurred are allowable
prior to final payment? Are audit procedures established and exercised?
Are there procedural requirements that establish periods for con-
tract file retentions?
Are there procedures established for controlling changes to sub-
agreements by the grantee?
Are there provisions which prevent contractors from making changes
without prior approval of the grantee?
• Subagreement Provisions (Applicable extracts from FMC 74-7,
Att. 0, Para. 4)
Does the grantee's procurement procedures require the following
typically titled provisions to be incorporated into subagreements
(reference FRP standard contract provision):
- Disputes, appeals, and remedies?
- Termination for default?
- Termination f
-------
APPENDIX 3. DEVELOPING AND APPROVING INDIRECT COST RATES
« Introduction
The grant application usually involves a request by the grantee for
reimbursement of both direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs are
those costs which are not readily identifiable with the program itself,
but nevertheless are incurred by the governmental unit for the joint
benefit of the various programs and activities carried out "by the
organization. An indirect cost rate is merely a means by which the
governmental unit determines the relative proportion of indirect
expenses which each program activity should bear. In order to develop
an indirect cost rate, it is necessary to identify the total indirect
cost pool, exclusive of unallowable costs and an appropriate cost
allocation base.
t Cost Allocation Plan
The indirect cost pool should include not only the departmental
indirect costs, but also a proportionate share of central service
support costs. In order to recover central service support costs
incurred outside of the department, a consolidated government-wide
cost allocation plan must be prepared. The cost allocation plan simply
identifies the central service support activities and allocates their
costs to other benefitting departments and agencies. An initial step
in the process, therefore, is to identify the central service support
activities. These commonly include personnel, purchasing, data proces-
sing, finance, and building and facilities maintenance. The next step
is to determine the nature and extent of services provided by central
service support activities to other departments and agencies. Once
this determination is made, the central service activity expenditures
must be allocated to the benefitting departments, divisions, or offices.
Suitable allocation bases must be selected for this allocation process.
The allocation base for each central service support activity should be
related to the type and nature of service provided and will most likely
differ for each of the central service departments. For example, the
cost of the personnel department might be allocated on the basis of
total numbers of employees in each benefitting department. On the other
hand, facilities maintenance costs might appropriately be allocated on
the basis of square footage occupied by each benefitting department.
The next step in the process is to analyze the operating department
expenditures. Unallowable costs must be excluded and the remaining costs
must be classified as either direct or indirect costs. Direct costs are
generally defined as those that can be identified specifically with a
particular cost objective such as a grant, contract, or other program
activity in contrast to indirect costs that are incurred for common or
joint purposes that benefit more than one cost objective, and are not
readily assignable to a specific direct cost activity.
-------
Indirect Cost Rates, Contined.
• Indirect Cost Proposal
The departmental indirect costs plus the central service support
activity costs allocated to the department via the cost allocation
plan constitute the indirect cost pool. Next, an appropriate distri-
bution base must be selected in order to arrive at an indirect cost
rate. Bases which are commonly used include:
a. total direct salaries and wages;
b. total direct salaries and wages,
plus applicable fringe benefits; and
c. total direct costs exclusive of
capital expenditures.
The indirect cost rate is the ratio between the total indirect
expense pool and the direct cost base and is expressed as a percentage.
This latter process, namely the development of the departmental
indirect cost rate, is documented in the form of an indirect cost
proposal.
• Section 208 Grant Application Requirements
EPA requires cost allocation plans as well as indirect cost proposals
to be submitted for approval for areawide planning grants under the
Section 208 program. EPA has a responsibility to formally notify the
grant applicants of the submittal and approval requirement of EPA. Such
notification is required since EPA's procedure differs from that normally
used where the cost allocation plans are retained by the local governments
for subsequent examination by federal auditors. Ideally, the cost alloca-
tion plan and the cost proposed plan should be submitted prior to the
submittal of the grant application, for without an approved indirect cost
rate EPA disallows all indirect costs, unless the indirect cost proposal
has been submitted to EPA. In that case, the rate can be negotiated
and is not automatically disallowed. The actions required by the grantee
and EPA are summarized in the following chart.
-------
INDIRECT COST REQUIREMENT!
ACTIONS REQUIRED
SUBJECT
r *
Cost Allocation Plan
Indirect Cost Proposal
Audit of Incurred Indirect
Costs (Subsequent year's
indirect cost proposal)
i
I
BY GRANTEE WHEN BY EPA WHEN
. Prepare and submit
proposal annually.
. Prepare and submit
prospective Indi-
rect cost rate
proposal annually.
. Prepare and submit
proposal .
. Make records avail-
able for audit.
. Desired: Prior
to grant appli-
cation.
. Latest: With
application.
. Desired: Prior
to grant appli-
cation.
. Latest: With
application.
. At year end and
when grantee
has major organ-
izational
changes which
affect approved
indirect cost
rate
. Ensure current plan
is approved by cog-
nizant federal agency.
. If EPA is cognizant
federal agency, .eval-
uate, negotiate, and
approve plan.
. Evaluate, negotiate,
and approve a pro-
spective indirect
cost rate if not
already approved by
another federal
agency.
. Audit to determine
allowability and
appropriateness of
allocations of In-
direct costs.
. Establish actual
indirect cost rate
for payment.
. Desired: Prior to
grant approval.
. Prior to allowing
any indirect costs
for reimbursement.*
. Desired: Prior to
grant application.
. Prior to allowing
any Indirect costs
for reimbursement.*
. Prior to final payment
to grantee of indirect
costs.
* Not*: A grant** Bust gain ««rly approval of hli projected indirect coat rate, since retroactive recovery of indirect
coit* will not be allowed by EPA (EPA Progrea Guidance Keao AM-6.)
• Supporting Information Requirements
Cost allocation plans must be supported by a local government organi-
zational chart that shows both the local government-wide organizations
rendering service and all local government departments receiving service.
Only changes to organizational structure need be made available in
subsequent years. In addition, the plan must be certified by the local
government Budget Officer or other authorized local government officials.
The plan itself should, at a minimum, contain (1) the nature of the
service provided and the relevance to government projects; (2) the items
of expense to be included in the cost; (3) the methods to be used in
distributing costs; and (4) identification of both the local government
agencies rendering the services and receiving the services.
43
-------
Indirect Cost Rates, Continued.
CERTIFICATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET OFFICER OR OTHER
RESPONSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL-LOCAL
GOVERNMENT-WIDE COST ALLOCATION
I hereby certify as the responsible official of
(Name of Local Government)
that the information contained In this local government-wiae allocation plan
for the fiscal year ended is correct and was prepared in
(Month-Day-Year)
accordance with the policies and procedures contained in FMC 74-4. I further
certify that a consistent approach has been followed in treating a given type
of cost as direct or indirect and that in no case have costs charged as direct
costs of federally-supported programs been included in the indirect costs re-
flected in the plan.
Signature
Title
Date
The submittal of each indirect cost (rate) proposal must be supported
by:
1. A certification by a responsible local government
official that the proposal has been prepared in
accordance with applicable regulations. The
sample format should be used for this purpose.
2. A copy of financial statements prepared by either
certified public accountants, licensed public
accountants, or state or local government auditors.
If these are not available, proposals should be
supported by any financial documents generated
either by the local government agency or higher
tier local government agency which can be used to
substantiate the authenticity of the amounts
proposed
3. A listing by Federal agency of current and forecast
grants and contracts, the amount of expenditures
incurred and forecast to be incurred on each for
the periods involved and the overhead limitations
(if any) applicable to each.
-------
GRABTBE CERTIFICATION BY OFFICIAL
INDIRECT COST PROPOSAL
I hereby certify as the responsible official of
(name of grantee, dept. or
agency)
that the Information contained In this Indirect cost proposal for the fiscal
year ended Is correct and was prepared In accordance with the
(Month-day-year)
policies and procedures contained In FMC 74-4, I further certify that
procedures were utilized (a) to prevent costs from being allocated to federal
programs as Indirect costs that have already been treated as direct program
costs, (b) to assure that consistent treatment was accorded similar costs, for
•11 programs In the Department/Agency, regardless of source of funds, (c) to
••sure that costs have not been treated as indirect costs of federal programs
Inconsistent with statutory restrictions governing those programs; and (d) that
Che forecast Indirect cost rate for the fiscal year ending
(Month-day-year)
Includes consideration of the Section 208 grant and other existing and antici-
pated grants.
Signature
Title
Date
• Approvals by Other Federal Agencies
EPA regional personnel who have questions regarding the approval status
of cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals for establishing
prospective indirect ocst rates should refer their questions to the grantee's
cognizant federal agency. Whenever the cognizant agency gives prior
approval to a government-wide allocation plan or indirect cost proposal, such
approval is formalized; distributed to all interested federal agencies and is
applicable to all federal grants and contacts.
• Procedures for Federal Agencies When Making Awards
A locality may charge federal programs in accordance with their approved
cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates. These charges shall be
accepted by the federal agencies making the awards.
-------
Indirect Cost Rates, Continued.
• Audits and Negotiation of Cost Allocation Plans
Responsibility for the audit an- negotiation of cost allocation plans
of individual localities has been assigned to specific federal agencies
by the Office of Management and Budget. The cognizant federal agency
will be responsible for the audit and acceptance of the cost allocation
plans required under FMC 74-4 and may request the submission of plans for
prior approval., as EPA has done, where it deems such a submission to be
in the best interests of the parties involved. A current list of agency
assignments is maintained by the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
Once an audit has been conducted by a federal agency, it is expected
that the federal auditor will be able to reach an agreement with the
local government agency on any audit findings. The need for involvement
of Federal personnel other than auditors, is contemplated only in those
instances in which there is a disagreement which cannot be resolved
between the auditor and the locality.
In the event that a local government disagrees with the auditor's
findings, it is the responsibility of the cognizant federal agency to
act as the negotiating agency for the Federal Government, and'to resolve
such differences in coordination with the other federal agencies.
« Audits and Negotiations of Indirect Cost Proposals
At the grantee level government, the federal agency with the predom-
inant interest in the work of the grantee will be responsible for necessary
negotiation, approval, and audit of the indirect cost proposal.
• Additional Information for Reviews
EPA regional personnel needing additional information concerning analysis,
evaluation, and negotiation of acceptable indirect cost rates should contact
the EPA Audit Office in Washington, D. C.
« Detailed Instructions for Preparation of Cost Allocation
Plans and Indirect Cost Proposals
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW) in consultation
with the other federal agencies concerned is responsible for developing and
issuing the instructions for use by state and local government grantees in
preparation of cost allocation plans. This responsibility applies to both
central support services at the state and local government level and indirect
cost proposals of individual grantee departments. DHEW has published a
guide for local government agencies entitled "Establishing Cost Allocation
Plans and Indirect Cost Proposals for Grants and Contracts with the Federal
Government."
Local governments needing additional information regarding the
preparation of local government-wide cost allocation plans or indirect
cost proposals should contact either their cognizant federal agency or:
Division of Grants Administration Policy
Office of the Assistant Secretary,
Comptroller, Department of Health,
Education and Walfare
330 Independence Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20201
46
-------
CHECK LIST
Cost Allocation Checklist
Indirect Cost Checklist
Has the grant applicant submitted his CAP as required by EPA?
Has his CAP been accepted by a federal agency?
- If so, which one?
What is the allocation to the grantee's department or organi-
zational entity?
- Is the amount reasonable for the benefits derived?
Doea the CAP project allocations over the future fiscal year.
- If not, have the allocations in the past been stable?
If the CAP has not been accepted, has the cognizant agency
been requested to audit and accept the CAP?
- Which agency?
Has the grant applicant submitted his TCP to EPA?
Does the grant applicant have an approved indirect cost rate?
- If so, what is the rate?
- Which federal agency approved it?
- When was it approved?
- Does the approval include the projection of a
predetermined rate (i.e., for the forthcoming FY?)
If predetermined rate has not been approved, is EPA cognizant
federal agency for giving approval?
- If not, which agency has been requested by EPA to approve
a rate?
- Have past rates been stable?
- Does the grantee's ICP include the proposed grant in the
base over which indirect costs will be distributed in
establishing the indirect cost rate?
- Have the unallowable costs excluded in establishing prior
indirect cost rates been excluded in forecasts of indirect
•-osts?
- Have other federal agencies involved with the grantee been
notified of EPA's approval of the grantee's indirect cost
rate?
47
-------
APPENDIX 4. TYPES OF CONTRACTS
In establishing agreements with engineering and consulting firms,
there are two basic ways of obtaining the services, through competitive
bid or negotiated procurement. With a formalized competitive bid, the
grantee solicits firms to bid on the services required with consideration
given first to technical competence and second to cost. The award is normally
made to the technically qualified firm with the lowest cost. Generally,
competitive procurement of this type results in a firm fixed price agreement
that: does not change unless the scope of work changes. As was mentioned
earlier, this is not normally the way the relationship between the grantee
and the firm is established. Therefore, the reasonableness of cost that can
be presumed from such competition is not present.
The method of obtaining engineering and consulting services under
grants is generally through a negotiated type of procurement. While this
type of procurement may also involve screening a number of firms for technical
competence, more often the firm has been preselected and thus, the important
point is the reasonableness and method of reimbursement. Under a negotiated
procurement, there are a number of types of reimbursement that can be affected.
They include firm fixed price (FFP), cost-plus-a-fixed-fee (CPFF), and time
and materials (or labor hour) contracts. The Federal Procurement Regulations
(FPR), Section 1-3.4 discusses in detail these forms of contracting, when they
are considered applicable, and their limitations. The following summary of
each is provided.
FIRM FIXED PRICE
The FFP or lump sum contract generally provides for a firm price
agreed to in advance for the services to be procured. It is not subject to
adjustment by reason of the contract cost experience and, when appropriately
applied, places maximum risk upon the contractor. Because the contractor
assumes full responsibility for profit or loss, he has maximum incentive for
effective cost control and contract performance. The FFP contract is suitable
for use in procurement when definite performance requirements are available
and whenever fair and reasonable prices can be established at the outset.
The lump sum form of reimbursement that is used by many engineering
firms for the design phase of a construction grant generally falls in the
category of an FFP contract. The engineer's reimbursement is essentially
predetermined based on percentages from the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) curve (or variation thereof) applied to grant construction
costs. While the FFP form of contracting for engineering services offers
many advantages, it has one significant disadvantage from the government's
standpoint. It requires that a good estimate be made of the expected cost
of the services. Normally, this would be an independent estimate prepared by
the grantee or government technical personnel. It is not satisfactory to
conclude that the use of the percentages from the ASCE curve (or variations
thereof) produce a reasonable price.
48
-------
The use of the FFP form of contracting for services under grants
would generally be effective if procedures and controls as recently prescribed
by EPA for the direct procurement of engineering services could be instituted
at the grantee or EPA (state agency) level. These procedures are detailed in
EPA Order 1970.2 dated August 13, 1973. In the event the grantee's records do
not document the necessary determination of reasonableness for the lump sum
contract, subsequent audit will have to be made of the firm's records.
COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE
The CPFF contract is a cost reimbursement type of contract which
provides for the payment of a fixed fee to the contractor. The fixed fee once
negotiated does not vary with actual cost. Because the fixed fee does not
vary in relation to cost, the CPFF contract provides the contractor only
miniraum incentive for effective management control of costs. The CPFF contract
provides that the contractor receive its actual allowable labor, other direct
coats, and indirect costs, plus a fixed fee profit. The CPFF contract is
written to provide for a total estimated cost (contract ceiling.) Prior to
award, a negotiation process which includes either price or cost analysis must
take place between the firm and the grantee to arrive at a reasonable estimate
of cost plus a negotiated profit. The grantee is required to document this
negotiation. In addition, the firm's costs are subject to an audit during or
after completion of performance to determine that their claims included only
allowable costs in accordance with applicable regulations.
TIME AND MATERIALS (LABOR HOUR)
This type contract provides for the procurement of services on the
basis of direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates (which include
direct labor, overhead and profit.) This type of contract does not afford
the contractor with any positive incentive to control cost. It is essential
that this type of contract be used only where provision is made for adequate
controls, including appropriate surveillance during performance. Because this
type of contract does not encourage effective cost control and requires almost
constant surveillance, it should be used only after determination that no other
type of contract will suitably serve. This type of contract shall establish a
ceiling price which the contractor exceeds at his own risk.
The labor hour contract has been used frequently by engineering and
consulting firms in the past. While it is an acceptable form of contracting, the
following controls that have not existed in the past are essential. The grantee
is responsible for obtaining cost data from the consulting engineer for evalua-
tion and negotiation in establishing hourly rates. This must be documented to
show that a reasonableness determination was made. In addition, the grantee
is responsible for maintaining (and documenting) surveillance over the hours
charged by the contractor. The contract must set a reasonable ceiling on the
total cost of these services. Final audit requires a determination that the
grantee fulfilled the above responsibilities. Otherwise, audit of the firm's
records to determine reasonableness is necessary.
49
-------
Types of contracts, continued.
In summary, any of the above forms of contracting for services can
be acceptable. However, the grantee is responsible for demonstrating that:
the method selected is appropriate for the
services to be performed;
the necessary evaluation of the reasonableness
of the proposed costs was made; and
controls required were maintained during performance.
In the event the grantee does not fulfill these responsibilities and subsequent
EPA review (technical or audit) reveals unallowable costs or excessive profits
as a result, the amounts will not be reimburseable to the grantee under the
grant.
50
-------
EXAMPLE
u
Qti
a,
s
X
s**
_
u.
w
u.
1
a
S
^
Cn
s§
rJ
1
H
1/5
O
C
3
s/;
o
u
Z
O
rH
H
S
U
O
t/>
§
(4
0
CrO
w
JV*
"O
0)
X
(0
^
•a -H
01 XI
•O TH IB
OI *** 4-1
•H TH to
»4H CJ 01
o a. m
01 10 IH
PL.
in »J 01
o u
4J 6 -1
O r«
c in a.
0) rH
•r* 4J 10
4-1 UH O
now
0 I-
CJ ft. <
r.
(h
ft.
•0 0
01
4-1 B
W -H 4->
B »
•H -0 O
u 01 U
in x
01 -H E
UH — 1
in
iH CO 01
•H 01
in a)
0 01 0
U IK Z
E
01
4J
CD
(X
•H
o
O.
01
01
J>
4J
0)
o
CJ
01
^
o
.O
01
M 10
m
o>
01 U
O TH
TH IH
M (X
a.
M OI
eg KJ TI
> 0 c
01-13
o
in 10 to
4J 1-1 4J
cn 4j in
0 E 0 u
o o o -H
U «i
rH rH O
rH X rH ^
< J3 < 0.
MH
O
in
^ IM
CO O
-H
r4 CO
u
CO -H
01 MH
B 01
•a 3 B
W in OJ
oo in j3
B ifl
10 -O
X 4-1 E
U E 10
B 01 C
3 B B 3
B 3 r<
40 K 1-1 r<
01 l-i 01
01 > 01 T)
41 O > E
PL. O O 3
r4
O
B
3
M
01
O
V4H
O E
3
U l-i
01 01
I4H >O
UH B
W 3
o
o
a. o.
3 3
01 0 u
O E
-JO) 01
u u S
a. E >*
10 10
00 4-1 CL.
B CX
•H 01 in
-HO in
rH O 01
•H (0 r<
JD 00
T3 O -0
*M C r4 0)
O 10 P. rJ
0) >, U 3
B a) o -a c
01 > 3 O 'H
S TH T3 -H
>,rH 0 tH »-«
10 01 l-i 01 O
(X T3 O. P* OO
•O
0>
p
3
B
CO 01
10 01
14H
•o
01 T3
cn oi
P 4J
3 O)
J3 IH
0 1
TH O
01 r.
M O.
u in
in 3
O rH
0 0.
^J
a
01
p
5-,
d
a.
<4-4
o
m
n
10
oa
•o
referre
D.
4-1
in
&
•0
01
IH
t.
01
UH
01
p
IX
4-1
m
«
01
_i
o>
o
E
01
^i
01
OI
(X
B
01
§
>
o
u
in to
rH B 00 01
10 01 TH E 4-t
3 O J3 1 10 TH rH 3
O -H B "H C 10 £X
rHE4J O O B-HM
oi X in o to *J -H
J3 O 3 -O rH E T)
01 B 10 E IX 01
•o 4-1 b 10 in B
B CO 4J >, » CO -H
IO-O4J X UrHOIOI
B B OI U 01 t-H 01
OtOOl t04-l3lOCO
M B >• IH3T3THO
oitnoi B 4-14-icu oi
NOIM 01 ECOXBr^
rHTH -O OWtJOlO
O 3 3 O to 4-1 B
4J *t3 o" 4-1 4-1 "O CO *H 4J
0)01 tOr^OIO>*'rS B
oou B^-'i-iioin ioS
CO 0) «H B O rH E
10T3C O 4JB IHOOI
UCU10 4JrH E4J01>
•H B o to in oi oi B CL o
TH-HO U4JOO OUO)
I4HOU-I 4JUE4JM JS
OOIW4JEioiOin O.-O B 4J
MO.O)OlOI-iX3 EtOTH
PM t/5 P- @ O 4-1 O B ^J 10 U 3
01 -O X O rH
ME 00 E 10
TH 10 TH 3
3 X in 4J
cr • E co oi o -o
OIOI tO-HEOlOE
IH rH 01 O -O r. 10
3 o -o m 4-1 TH 4J
COTjBOIBBiJr^EtO
THOI10THTHOItOrHO4-l
>%LI|HTH4JO)OI10 0)
rHCOOUBr>(Xrfl 3CO
E UH 01 TH f-H O M V E
O -IHCLMO OlOOlO
^UCOO. E> 4J 4J
•HOUrHOIB O O OI C 4-1
t_lU-t 10>OIUH4J4J OOI
o) oi oi TH 4j B to to in 4-i o*
01 01 E U IH rH ^4 IH 01 O M
UH 4J Q X OIOICU4J4-14-10IO)
ZCQ4J4JOOrH CJOUT3-H
rH
10
•H
4-1
01
4-1
o
a.
to
o
4J
u
v in
B to
0 TH
U M
51
-------
September 13, 1974 Federal Management Circular 74-7
Attachment 0
PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
1. This attachment provides standards for use by the State and
local governments in establishing procedures for the procurement
of supplies, equipment, construction, and other services with
Federal grant funds. These standards are furnished to insure
that such materials and services are obtained in an effective
reamer and in compliance with the provisions of applicable
Federal law and Executive orders. No additional requirements
shall be imposed by the Federal agencies upon the grantees unless
specifically required by Federal law or Executive orders.
2. The standards contained in this attachment do not relieve the
grantee of the contractual responsibilities arising under its
contracts. The grantee is the responsible authority, without
recourse to the grantor agency regarding the settlement and
satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues arising
out of procurements entered into, in support of a grant. This
includes but is not limited to: disputes, claims, protests of
award, source evaluation or other matters of a contractual
nature. Matters concerning violation of law are to be referred
to such local. State, or Federal authority as may have proper
jurisdiction.
3. Grantees may use their own procurement regulations which re-
flect applicable state and local law, rules and regulations pro-
vided that procurements made with Federal grant funds adhere to
the standards set forth as follows:
a. The grantee shall maintain a code or standards of conduct
which shall govern the performance of its officers, employees, or
agents in contracting with and expending Federal grant funds.
Grantee's officers, employees or agents, shall neither solicit
nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from
contractors or potential contractors. To the extent permissible
by State or local law, rules or regulations, such standards shall
provide for penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions
to be applied for violations of such standards by either the
grantee officers, employees, or agents, or by contractors or
their agents.
-------
74-7 September 13, 1974
Attachment 0
b. All procurement transactions regardless of whether nego-
tiated or advertised and without regard to dollar value shall be
conducted in a manner so as to provide maximum open and free com-
petition. The grantee should be alert to organizational
conflicts of interest or noncompetitive practices among
contractors which may restrict or eliminate competition or
otherwise restrain trade.
c. The grantee shall establish procurement procedures which
provide for, as a minimum, the following procedural requirements:
(1) Proposed procurement actions shall be reviewed by
grantee officials to avoid purchasing unnecessary or duplicative
items. Where appropriate, an analysis shall be made of lease and
purchase alternatives to determine which would be the most
economical, practical procurement.
(2) Invitations for bids or requests for proposals shall
be based upon a clear and accurate description of the technical
requirements for the material, product, or service to be pro-
cured. Such description shall not, in competitive procurements,
contain features which unduly restrict competition. "Brand name
or equal" description may be used as a means to define the
performance or other salient requirements of a procurement, and
when so "«*»<3 the specific features cf tha named biaiid which musr
be met by offerers should be clearly specified.
(3) Positive efforts shall be made by the grantees to
utilize small business and minority-owned business sources of
supplies and services. Such efforts should allow these sources
the maximum, feasible opportunity to compete for contracts to be
performed utilizing Federal grant funds.
(4) The type of procuring instruments used (i.e., fixed
price contracts, cost reimbursable contracts, purchase orders,
incentive contracts, etc.), shall be appropriate for the particu-
lar procurement and for promoting the best interest of the grant
program involved. The wcost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost" method of
contracting shall not be used.
(5) Formal advertising, with adequate purchase descrip-
tion, sealed bids, and public openings shall be the required
method of procurement unless negotiation pursuant to paragraph
(6) below is necessary to accomplish sound procurement. However,
procurements of $10,000 or less need not be so advertised unless
otherwise required by State or local law or regulations. Where
such advertised bids are obtained the awards shall be made to the
responsible bidder whose bid is responsive to the invitation and
-------
September 13, 1974 FMC 74-7
Attachment O
i.3 mo&-'c. advantageous to the grantee, price and other factors
considered, (Factors such as discounts, transportation costs,
taxes may be considered in determining the lowest bid.)
Invitations for bids shall clearly set forth all requirements
which the bidder must fulfill in order for his bid to be
evaluated by the grantee. Any or all bids may be rejected when
it is in the grantee*s r.nterest to do so, and such rejections are
in accordance with applicable State and local law, rules, and
regulations.
(6) Procurements may be negotiated if it is impracti-
cable and unfeasible to use formal advertising. Generally,
procurements may be negotiated by the grantee if:
(a) The public exigency will not permit the delay
incident to advertising;
(b) The material or service to be procured is
available from only one person or firm; (All contemplated sole
source procurements where the aggregate expenditure is expected
to exceed $5,000 shall be referred to the grantor agency for
prior approval.)
(c) The aqqrregate amount involved does not exceed
$10,000;
(d) The contract is for personal or professional
services, or for any service to be rendered by a university, col-
lege, or other educational institutions;
(e) The material or services are to be procured and
used outside the limits of the United states and its possessions;
(f) No acceptable bids have been received after
formal advertising;
(g) The purchases are for highly perishable mater-
ials or medical supplies, for material or services where the
prices are established by law, for technical items or equipment
requiring standardization and interchangeability of parts with
existing equipment, for experimental, developmental or research
work, for supplies purchased for authorized resale, and for tech-
nical or specialized supplies requiring substantial initial in-
vestment for manufacture;
(h) Otherwise authorized by law, rules, or
regulations.
-------
FMC 74-7 September 13, 1974
Attachment 0
Notwithstanding the existence of circumstances justifying nego-
tiation, competition shall be obtained to the maximum extent
practicable.
(7) Contracts shall be made only with responsible con-
tractors who possess the potential ability to perform sucessfully
under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement.
Consideration shall be given to such matters as contractor integ-
rity, record of past performance, financial and technical re-
sources, or accessibility to other necessary resources.
(8) Procurement records or files for purchases in
amounts in excess of $10,000 shall provide at least the following
pertinent information: justification for the use of negotiation
in lieu of advertising, contractor selection, and the basis for
the cost or price negotiated.
(9) A system for contract administration shall be main-
tained to assure contractor conformance with terms, conditions,
and specifications of the contract or order, and to assure ade-
quate and timely followup of all purchases.
1. The grantee shall include, in addition to provisions to de-
fine a sound and complete agreement, the following provisions in
all contracts and subgrants:
a. Contracts shall contain such contractual provisions or
conditions which will allow for administrative, contractual, or
legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach
contracts terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as
may be appropriate.
b. All contracts, amounts for which are in excess of $2,500,
shall contain suitable provisions for termination by the grantee
including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis
for settlement. In addition, such contracts shall describe
conditions under which the contract may be terminated for default
as well as conditions where the contract may be terminated
because of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor.
c. In all contracts for construction or facility improvement
awarded in excess of $100,000, grantees shall observe the bonding
requirements provided in Attachment B to this circular.
-------
September 13, 1974 FMC 74-7
Attachment O
d. All construction contracts awarded by recipients and their
contractors or subgrantees having a value of more than $10,000,
shall contain a provision requiring compliance with Executive Order
No. 11246, entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by
Executive Order No. 11375, and as supplemented in Department of
Labor Regulations (41 CFR, Part 60).
e. AH contracts and subgrants for construction or repair
shall include a provision for compliance with the Copeland "Anti-
Kick Back" Act (18 U.S.C. 871) as supplemented in Department of
Labor regulations (29 CFR, Part 3). This act provides that each
contractor or subgrantee shall be prohibited from inducing, by
any means, any person employed in the construction, completion,
or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation
to which he is otherwise entitled. The grantee shall report all
suspected or reported violations to the grantor agency.
f. When required by the Federal grant program legislation,
all construction contracts awarded by grantees and subgrantees in
excess of $2,000 shall include a provision for compliance with
the Davis-Bacon Act (tO U.S.C. 276a to a-7) and as supplemented
by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR, Part 5). Under this
act contractors shall be required to pay wages to laborers and
mechanics at a rate not less than the minimum wages specified in
a wage determination made V»y *-V»e Secretary of Labor. In
addition, contractors shall be required to pay wages not less
often than once a week. The grantee shall place a copy of the
current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of
Labor in each solicitation and the award of a contract shall be
conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The
grantee shall report all suspected or reported violations to the
grantor agency.
g. Where applicable, all contracts awarded by grantees and
subgrantees in excess of $2,000 for construction contracts and .in
excess of $2,500 for other contracts which involve the employment
of mechanics or laborers shall include a provision for compliance
with sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-330) as supplemented by Department
of Labor regulations (29 CFR, Part 5). Under section 103 of the
act, each contractor shall be required to compute the wages of
every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work day of
8 hours and a standard work week of 10 hours. Work in excess of
the standard workday or workweek is permissible provided that the
worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 1-1/2 times the
basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours in
any calendar day or 10 hours in the work week. Section 107 of
the act is applicable to construction work and provides that no
laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or
under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or
-------
PMC 74-7 September 13, 1974
Attachment 0
dangerous to his health and safety as determined under
construction, safety, and health standards promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor. These requirements do not apply to the
purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily
available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or
transmission of intelligence.
h. Contracts or agreements, the principal purpose of which
is to create, develop, or improve products, processes or methods;
or for exploration into fields which directly concern public
health, safety, or welfare; or contracts in the field of science
or technology in which there has been little significant experi-
ence outside of work funded by Federal assistance, shall contain
a notice to the effect that matters regarding rights to inv/en-*
tions, and materials generated under the contract or agreement
are subject to the regulations issued by the Federal grantor
agency . The contractor shall be advised as to the source of
additional information regarding these matters.
i. All negotiated contracts (except those of $10,000 or less)
awarded by grantees shall include a provision to the effect that
the grantee, the Federal grantor agency, the Comptroller General
of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representa-
tives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and
records ot the contractor which are directly pertinent to a spe-
cific grant program for the purpose of making audit, examination,
excerpts, and transcriptions.
j. Contracts and subgrahts of amounts in excess of $100,000
shall contain a provision which requires the recipient to agree
to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations
issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. )
as amended. Violations shall be reported to the grantor agency and
the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------