The first rule of consulting is client confidentiality. We don’t identify our clients by name and, on the rare occasion we have cause to write an article about them, we change the names to protect their confidentiality. That being said, we thought readers might be interested in what we’ve been doing this past year. Without further introduction, here is a list of Apogee Consulting, Inc.’s 2016 clients and their projects.

1. Client 1 is a small, woman-owned business that provides engineering services. It’s experienced a phenomenal growth rate over the past few years. Its customers are largely prime defense contractors providing services to the US Navy. We have supported this client, off and on, for many years. Sometimes this client takes our advice. Other times: not so much. When the latter occurs we tend to write about it. The client wanted to become a prime, and receive cost-type contracts, but failed its first DCAA accounting system review, primarily because the company accountant didn’t know anything about government accounting or what DCAA would look for, and the client didn’t call us until afterwards. We helped the client develop a corrective action plan, which included hiring somebody who knew something about government contracting and government accounting. We helped the client advertise the position and evaluate candidates. The company eventually found somebody they liked. Since the company made the successful hire, we haven’t heard from it. (Which is fine, because our aim is to work ourselves out of a job. But it would be nice to know whether or not the client completed the accounting system corrective action plan we developed.)

2. Client 2 is a very successful small business providing engineering services, primarily to non-defense prime contractors. This client reappeared in late 2015, after several years of silence, with significant audit problems (most of which were rebuttable). After several attempts to rebut the audit findings with mixed success, we advised contacting an attorney, and the client accepted our recommendation. We continue to actively support this client and help prepare for litigation. More to the point, we continue to assist efforts to avoid litigation.

3. Client 3 is a former small business that became a large business by virtue of being acquired by a large business. It designs and produces complex connectors for aerospace and defense applications, both as a prime and as a subcontractor. Ed worked with this client to develop its first small business plan, which was now a contractual requirement. This was a rocky project because the client could not identify which internal organization and/or individual would be responsible for implementing the small business plan, to include such activities as small business outreach and reporting. Still, we delivered what the client asked for; we have no idea whether or not the client actually implemented the plan we designed.

4. Client 4 is a medium-sized classic defense contractor, recently acquired by a larger international organization. In 2015 Tom helped this client with critical subcontractor cost/price analyses that were delaying a large contract award. In 2016 he was asked to return to help with certain other issues, which included overseeing a project to develop a specialized safety manual for an affiliated entity.

5. Client 5 is a small subsidiary of a large defense contractor. It has both commercial and government contracts, but the government contracts have all been FFP. The large defense contractor recently was acquired by an even larger defense contractor. The problem was that this subsidiary had been providing products to the acquiring entity under a FFP purchase order. Now the transaction would be an inter-organizational transfer subject to FAR 31.205-26(e); i.e., it would be a cost-type agreement. We assisted the company with preparing a proposal that would meet FAR Table 15-2 requirements, including calculating compliant indirect cost rates. (We will continue to assist this client with similar issues in 2017.)

6. Client 6 is a small, entrepreneurial company that designs and produces innovative products, primarily for defense prime contractors—although it has at least one DoD prime contract of its own. Our first project was to assist the company with designing a new indirect rate structure that would permit commercial item transactions (i.e., commercial item subcontracts between affiliated entities, which are different from non-commercial inter-organizational transfers). Our second project, which is still ongoing, involves Tom assisting with cost/price analysis regarding several subcontractors, some of whom seem to qualify for a commercial item determination. The challenge here is to sell the commercial item determination to the DCMA contracting officer.

7. Client 7 is a lovely client who ignored our advice, actually lied to us about the project status, and then didn’t pay our bills. We wrote a two-part article about this “gem” of a client. 2017 will start with us taking this asshole to court in order to collect what we are rightfully owed. Rocko, we are coming for you.

8. Client 8 is a long-term client, for whom we’ve been providing “on-call consulting services” for many years. A large telecommunications provider, this mega entity also has a smaller division that provides products and services to the DoD. We have provided advice and assistance to this client in areas including cost allowability, cost accounting practices, SAP implementation, commercial item determinations, and indirect rate calculations.

9. Client 9 is a new client, for whom we also provide “on-call consulting services.” That means that, basically, we answer their questions. Because this client already has a full-time experienced compliance team, we tend to only get difficult questions that require thought and research.

10. Client 10 is a small business provider of technology services to the DoD. We took on a quick-turn project to help the company develop a brand new indirect rate structure. This involved detailed labor cost modeling. The final indirect cost model aggregated data from three sources across two companies, and involved modeling a split of one fringe benefit pool into two fringe benefit pools, an on-site and an off-site overhead rate, and comparing a TCI G&A allocation base to a VAB G&A allocation base. For the VAB base scenario we developed a material handling pool. Honestly, it was one of the most complex models we’ve ever seen. But we got it done!

As you can see, Apogee Consulting, Inc., works on a variety of projects for both small and larger companies. It’s good to be busy.

2016 was a great year and we trust 2017 will be just as good!