Charles Hamm, Esq.

Background Charlie is a Managing Consultant with Redstone Government Consulting, Inc., located in our firm’s Huntsville, Alabama office. His areas of expertise include working with government contracting issues, risk assessments, unallowable costs, policies, procedures and current regulations. His legal background and his continuous involvement with our high level DCAA experts and legal experts provides him an ability to assist our customers in interpreting and understanding the regulations beyond what would normally be expected from a staff Senior Consultant. His background in finance coupled with his law degree is a benefit to our customers and our team. Professional Experience Mr. Hamm’s experience includes analyzing government contracts and providing support to government contractors. In addition, Charlie has experience assisting clients with Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) best practices and compliance. His legal background allows him to have a diverse viewpoint of the aspects associated with government contracting. Prior to joining Redstone Government Consulting, Inc., he worked with law offices in various areas of the law. His role with the Mississippi Center for Justice in Jackson, MS included working with foreclosures as well as assisting his clients apply for government exemptions. His work with a family law firm (JSA Law in Memphis, TN) consisted of evaluating asset distribution through relevant case law. Education Charlie graduated with a BSBA in Finance with a Concentration in Investment Management from the University of Alabama in 2009. Charlie also received his Juris Doctorate from Mississippi College School of Law in 2013 and was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 2014.

Recent Posts

Understanding Which Thresholds Apply to Your Government Contracts

All too often, contractors have a dilemma as to which changing dollar threshold should be inserted into company policy.  You may recall that there has been considerable debate around changing dollar thresholds around TINA, CAS, and even the executive comp ceiling from a few years back.  There is now a proposed rule before the FAR Council is seeking to eliminate this confusion.  This rule will also reduce the administrative workload in processing changing dollar thresholds throughout the FAR.  

Read More

Topics: Contracts Administration, Government Regulations

Possible Recoveries from a WD (Wage Determination) Increase/Decrease

Wage Determination Fact Finding

In ASBCA Case No. 61040, 61101, Sonoran Technology appeals their claim for an equitable adjustment due to an increase in the Service Contract Act Wage Determination after contract award.  The solicitation that controlled this contract award included a SCA wage determination and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The bidders were required to use the current SCA wage determination (at the time of the bid) in the formulation of their proposals submitted to the Government.  For future increases in SCA wages and/or benefits, the FAR and the contract have provisions/clauses which cover a contract price change for a wage determination for a multi-year contract.  The issue here whether a new wage determination, incorporated into the contract, prompted a responsibility for the government to adjust the contract price to compensate Sonoran for a corollary increase in its state gross receipts taxes.

Read More

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Small Business Compliance, Contracts Administration, DCAA Audit Support, Human Resources

Subcontract Disputes on Cost Type Government Contracts

Although many of us think of contract disputes as those involving a prime contractor and a U.S. Government agency, subcontracts can also trigger differences of subcontract interpretation between the prime and subcontractor. In Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-215, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided a diversity breach of contract case between government contractors (the contractor and subcontractor names are a matter of public record, thus disclosure). Fluor (the subcontractor) contended that they did not agree to a 2.3% cap to their G&A on a proposal effort with the United States Air Force. Their proposal, as a subcontract to their prime contractor, PAE, was ultimately selected for the award, at which time, a subcontract agreement was executed and the two parties began their respective performance on the contract. The specific language of that subcontract agreement is the heart of this case (differentiated from a dispute over the regulatory language contained in a subcontract flow-down).

Read More

Topics: Small Business Compliance, Contracts Administration, Cost-Type Contracts

Details Matter in Preparing Responsive Bids (Part 2)

Understanding the requirements and/or selection criteria before preparing a fully responsive bid to a government solicitation cannot be understated. In a recent decision (B-413559.2; B-413559.8) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two separate government contractors’ protests questioned the government’s evaluation scheme. Specifically, the protesters argued that certain terms contained in the request for proposal (RFP) were unduly restrictive. The protestors were ultimately challenging their respective elimination from competition based on the fact that they did not score high enough to be included in the top 60 technically rated offerors.

Read More

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Small Business Compliance, Contracts Administration, Defense Contractors

Details Matter in Preparing Responsive Bids (Part 1)

Adhering to the requirements of a government solicitation is paramount when submitting a proposal. In a recent decision (B-413104.5; B-413104.6) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two separate government contractors’ protests were denied for failure to meet the explicit requirements of a solicitation for the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH). The protestors were ultimately challenging their respective elimination from competition based on the fact that the non-responsibility determination should have been referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under SBA’s certificate of competency (COC) procedures.

Read More

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Small Business Compliance, Contracts Administration, Defense Contractors

How to Develop a Basis of Estimate (BOE)

One of the most important parts of a proper response to a Government Solicitation is the Basis of Estimate(s) (BOE). The BOE is a tool that is carefully developed by members of a project team through intricate analysis of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in order to calculate the total price for the required effort. The BOE must be developed before the pricing can take place so that the pricing team knows the cost elements, which will require pricing. To put it differently, the BOE is an estimate developed to outline a Company’s expected staffing and solutions for the selected Government solicitation. This proposed estimate is combined with detailed explanations and supporting rationale which bolsters the overall conclusion. The BOE needs to be able to show the level of services (proposed labor), the skill mix required, materials, travel, etc., that will be required to deliver what is requested through the solicitation. In order to provide a realistic estimate, technical experts should be utilized in order to appropriately determine the work effort needed. The details in the BOE need to be sufficient for the technical evaluator (government or prime contractor) to understand the rationale used, the source of the underlying data, the detailed calculations involved, and the basis for any complexity factors.

Read More

Topics: Compliant Accounting Infrastructure

Department of Justice (DOJ) Fraud Recoveries

In each of the past four years, the Justice Department has recovered more than $3.5 billion dollars from cases that involve the False Claims Act (FCA). Although the FY2015 recoveries are a substantial decline from FY2014’s $5.7 billion, these are still extraordinary amounts of money that are being recovered based upon fraud allegations. It should be noted that the DOJ FY2015 Summary Media Release mentions a number of settlements by name (i.e. specific identification of the individual or company which allegedly violated the FCA); however, this DOJ Media Release masks the fact that many of these involve mere allegations with no finding of liability (a statement included at the very end of each individual settlement media release). Of note, the government contracting world we live in represents the second largest piece of the recovery pie; according to the Department of Justice’s release, the government contracting slice was $1.1 billion over the last fiscal year. Something of a “wow moment” even though FCA recoveries from health related services continue to lead the pack.

Read More

Topics: Contracts Administration, Defense Contractors

DID YOU KNOW? Department of Labor announced a 2015 Rate Increase

On June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) increased the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) Health & Welfare benefits from $4.02 to $4.27. A notice is not sent directly to contractors and unfortunately for them the importance of this change lies with timing. For those contractors that are currently working diligently on preparing cost proposals, this increase will directly affect you. According to the DOL memorandum that put this change into effect, “all invitation for bids opened, or other service contracts awarded on or after June 30, 2015, must include an updated SCA WD issued in accordance with the regulatory health and welfare (H&W) fringe benefit determination methodology.” So if you have recently submitted a proposal subject to the SCA, we suggest that you ensure that your H&W meets the SCA H&W requirement of $4.27.

Read More

Topics: Contractor Employee Compensation, Contracts Administration, Defense Contractors

ASBCA Decision on CAS (Cost Accounting Standards)

The judgments rendered by the ASBCA in the Raytheon Co., Space & Airborne Sys, ASBCA Nos. 57801, 57803, 58068 resulted in the resolution of a number of issues concerning CAS (Cost Accounting Standards) cost impacts associated with unilateral changes in a contractor’s cost accounting practices. There were five basic issues; the Government prevailed on three, the contractor prevailed on one, and one was undecided (to be decided in the actual trial given that the current decisions were in reference to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment).

Read More

Topics: DCAA Audit Support

DOJ Media Release: False Claims Act Cases in FY14

The Continuing Trend of Relatively Few Involving Defense Contractors

The False Claims Act (FCA) and the alleged misdeeds of companies doing business with the government made it possible for the U.S. Department of Justice to recover a record amount of $5.69 billion in civil settlements and judgments for the government for this past fiscal year.  Notably a trend continues where relatively few actions involve defense contractors, albeit this group continues to be miscast as the bad players in government contracting.  In FY2014, the true bad players continued to be those involved with federal health care programs ($2.3 billion) and the new kid on the block, bank and other financial institutions fraud ($3.1 billion).

Read More

Topics: Business Systems Review, Compliant Accounting Infrastructure, Litigation Consulting Support