Reference interim AFARS Implementation of Final Rule on 32 CFR 668, Contractor Manpower Reporting Requirement.

This reporting requirement applies to non-supply contracts for Army customers. It basically requires the contractor to input the following information at a secure web site:

(a) Reporting Period. This period will usually be tied with payment request period.
(b) Name & Address.
(c) Contract Number.
(d) Total Estimated Value.
(e) Federal Supply Class or Service Code.
(f) Army Customer Name and Address.
(g) Countries being supported through the contract
(h) Contracting Office and Address
(i) Direct Labor Hours and Value
(j) Estimated or Actual Indirect Labor.
(k) Estimated or Actual Indirect Labor Value. (l) POC information.

It applies to all Army solicitations issued and contracts awarded (including orders under GSA Schedule contracts and contracts awarded by other agencies that allow direct ordering by the Army), and all bilateral modifications of existing Army contracts, after 15 Mar 00, except the following:

(a) Contracts valued at $100,000 or below. IDIQ contracts estimated to exceed $100K in value shall contain the requirement for reporting of all orders placed in excess of $25,000. For GSA schedules, the dollar limit is $100K.

(b) Contracts for non-Army customers.

(c) Contracts for acquisition of supplies and equipment.

Do we need to incorporate the AFARS recommended language into existing contracf through bilateral mod regardless of the dollar value of the mod and/or the existing contract?

Has anyone negotiated modification to incorporate the interim AFARS language into existing contracts? Was it a "no cost" modification?

Any problems in inputting data and monitoring compliance by the contractor?

The deadline for FY00 was today! Have you input data for contractors?

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 07:47 am:

Anon1, I missed the regulation you referred to. Can you please provide a link to it? I couldn't find it in the on-line version of AFARS. Thanks and Happy Sails! Joel

By Anon1 on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 12:13 pm:

It has not been formalized into AFARS yet.

Please refer to SAAL-ZP memo, dated 9 Jan 01, at:

http://acqnet.sarda.army.mil/library/AFAR/ContractorManpowerReportingRequirements.pdf

The secure web site for data entry is at:

https://contractormanpower.us.army.mil/cmr/

The following link provides a informative briefing chart on the reporting requirement:

https://contractormanpower.us.army.mil/cmr/information/CME_CMR_Briefing_020601.ppt

I would appreciate any information from anyone that has started implementing this requirement.

By Ron Vogt on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 04:45 pm:

The biggest problem we are having is that our C.O.s are sending us no-cost, bilateral modifications, that they claim we are required to sign. There is a bit of a problem in calling something no-cost and bilateral, but telling you that you are required to sign. My advice is to not sign, and inform the C.O. that you will be submitting a cost proposal for negotiation. If they turn around and issue a unilateral modification (debatable, but possible), you can submit an REA. Either way, the requirement could be costly to implement, and you should not be doing it for free.
You can also request an exemption from the requirement if your cost accounting system can not handle the required data collection.  There are some other problems regarding the legislation that created this requirement. These are being addressed with DA by some industry associations.

By Kennedy How on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 12:31 pm:

Does anybody have an idea of the costs involved to implement this kind of reporting requirement? I'm presuming that the Government is thinking that the costs are minimal to none (like when EPA hits industry with new regs). Certainly, there's some costs involved, but is that a direct cost to a particular contract, or should it really be in the overhead pool? Why would you charge me direct, when you have 17 other contracts with the Army that are over $100K and should be reported as well?

I suppose this kind of requirement, from the AFARS needs to be implemented bilaterally, it's a legal requirement that has to be there (hence, the last two elements of Ron's post), but the no-cost part appears to be Unilateral at this point. But, if a contractor agrees with it, so be it.

Kennedy

By Ron Vogt on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 01:00 pm:

An addendum to my earlier post: If you have a Part 12 contract, you have an additional argument against a no-cost modification. 52.212-4(c) states "Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties."  Just another reason why you can't be "required" to agree to a no-cost mod.