baierle

No. We did not think of this....actually had to look it up to understand what it meant. Seems like what we need, though. Is this done in Government? The RFI may indicate competition is out there; we understand this. Q: How would we structure this document (RFP??) and its resultant document (contract, agreement?). We have some sample commercial agreements and can adapt some language and structure. We are just without a clue right now.... Of course we will get legal involved, but need to have a PLAN before we do this.

Good day-- We are seeking any guidance to assist us with a requirement that is new and we have never done. Our client (researcher) needs to obtain equipment from a commercial firm to evaluate as part of research for several months---a precursor to a possible procurement. We are calling it a "usage agreement", but we are only familiar with interagency agreements. Q: Once Market Research and other hurdles are completed, how do we structure this document? Do we issue a commercial RFP/ order with the intention of at least some value (consideration of $1.00)? Is there anything prohibiting us from preparing an agreement with a commercial firm for zero consideration? The whole point (we imagine) is that if the testing works well, the client will want to sole source this equipment. I will appreciate a gentle nudge in the right direction from anyone who has had to do something like this. V/r--EB

I always believed if the contractor was hustling, doing research, and providing quotes, etc. and spending an estimated 15 minutes or more of their time satisfying Government market research inquiries, then we may have a problem. Contractor may be getting his hopes up, and it is our job to remind them of the process so this does not happen. My advice is to use good business judgement and remind them (or encourage your agency clients to remind contractor) that this is only market research. And, I would advise agency clients who prepare requirements: Please, do not be be greedy and lazy and allow the contractor to do what should be Government procurement research. EB

Can you clarify your position? Is it your position that an IDIQ contract cannot be performance-based if delivery/task orders issued against it are not performance-based? Yes. Based on the info in #4, that is my opinion. If the info in #4 is known to me at the onset, I would not set the procurement up as PBSA and would not code it as such when reporting. It seems disingenous to do otherwise.

Retread-- what this tells me is: despite years of experience and education, and excellent intuition and business judgement, bad contracting continues (in part) because of agency processes in place. In this case, I require determination of legal sufficiency before I can proceed. Fair enough--but I am being given bogus reasons for rejection. Often times, solicitors appear to want to be quasi contracting officers. At this agency, contracting officer cannot make a determination that legal is wrong (idiotic!!) and proceed.... I have a plan B (as a good professional should), but this type of poor guidance is not good for milestones and client satisfaction.

I need to tread lightly because I will be working here until I get RIF'd (or whatever happens) and I need counsel to approve certain things as part of the process here. I want to tell him that he is mistaken, but I am not sure how to form my argument; I am sure to ruffle feathers somewhat. This is just an example of how legal strangles us here and our procurements take much longer than necessary because of poor guidance.

this was the response from legal counsel: "The Option rules are in FAR part 17. The T & M rules are in FAR part 16. The term ?ceiling price? is found in FAR 16.601(d)(2). The term is not found in FAR part 17.207."

you won't believe this (well, Vern may)-- it was our legal counsel specifically citing the fact that no where is option cited in 16.601

number 4 is what makes it NOT PBSA. I don't have trouble with the rest, although a bit extensive. This must be Navy. ; - )

Thanks for the reply; you are correct. I wished I would use this in my supportive argument, but my issue is trying to support the use of a Time and Material line item that I intended to use as an option item. The quantity is unknown. IQ may be more appropriate and we are researching this. ???However, since when was "Options" and T&M type mutually-exclusive and not to be used? Does the word "option" have to be found in the FAR section providing for T&M?? I am baffled.

I have never heard this position concerning the structure of a contract before and I am hopeful that someone at this forum can help me with some support or guidance to contradict this or overcome this so I can get my requirement met: I am told that I cannot structure a CLIN as T&M (even if I get my D&F approved) as an Option item on my contract because "The Option rules are in FAR part 17. The T & M rules are in FAR part 16. The term ?ceiling price? is found in FAR 16.601(d)(2). The term is not found in FAR part 17.207." anyone?

WAIT!! I had another idea I would like your feedback on: maybe I should include up to XXX hours of this engineering support in the FFP portion and not worry about any options. Your advice is sought...PROS/CONS

Good day-- I am preparing a service contract for a one-time relocation of equipment from one facility to another. This contract will include design/layout services, install, testing, etc... I intend to create ONE FFP contract line item (CLIN) on this contract to accomplish the work in accordance with the SOW. We want an option item for engineering support services (10 hours at FFP fully-burdened hourly rate) that may be used during the later stages, should we require such. (NOTE: We want this to be an option, not a T&M (IQ) CLIN). So, my question surrounds the option clause. I will include 52.217-5?Evaluation of Options (not exercising at time of award)--not an issue. But, I don't think 52.217-7- Option for Increased Quantity is appropriate-- because my option CLIN/and service is different than the basic CLIN And..52.217-8-Option to Extend Services, extends the term of the contract. If we exercise option labor hours....it may extend the term, may not. Would this be appropriate to use? I will appreciate all advice.

Thanks for the suggestion. We really don't have the funding for incentives; we barely can get our mission accomplished with current funds. And, it is my opinion that a fair profit is incentive enough these days for this work. V/r--EB

Thank you for your responses. I was under the impression that Performance Based Payments were a type of financing and did not want to use that term incorrectly. Semantics? Progress payments based on accomplishment is what I want--- but this is not a construction K, so I did not want to use "progress payment" terminology incorrectly, either. We were considering LD's in addiiton to a % reduction to the FFP line item for each day late (not excusable). We don't want the money returned, but we want to emphasize at the RFP stage how critical this whole situation was,-- and that maybe the "not-so-serious" players would drop out of the race and the serious players would prepare their tech proposal accordingly. However, since this appears to be overkill to some, we will go the usual route of not making final payment until 100% successful completion. V/r--EB

I am preparing to issue an RFP for a service contract to dismantle, evaluate, pack/crate/transport to another location, reassemble and test some sensitive equipment. I would like to incorporate progress payments based on milestone completion AND would like to incorporate some sort of consequence (% reduction to that line) should contractor fail to meet each milestone. Every step is dependent on the other and several missions are dependent on this move being done properly and timely. I am finding guidance for construction progress payments and performance-based payments, neither of which seem to be applicable to this requirement. I do not believe that I am prohibited from this approach, but I am seeking guidance and lessons concerning incorporating consequences (% reduction). I do not plan on providing positive incentives besides the fair profit awardee should earn.

We totally EXPECT our civil-servant PAR (COR, COTR, ConRep, CSR, QAE, etc) to assist with such matters!!!

My practice has been that we do not tailor the -5. If we need to tailor (and we have in order to add option clause or something...) then we place addendum to the -4. We leave the -5 as is and check what is applicable. We have also created addendum to the -2 to inform offerors of evaluation criteria.

I asked this question because I did not see the "magnitude" language info in FAR 37 as I do in FAR 36. Thank you. I will presume that it's authorized because it is not prohibited, correct? Do I give the same dollar value ranges as given for construction?

Is it authorized to disclose the magnitude of an upcoming procurement for a SERVICE contract? I understand it is quite common practice when preparing for and announcing an upcoming CONSTRUCTION project. Any education on this matter you could provide will be appreciated.

...again, I empathize. been there, for certain! I say, when in doubt, "slin it out"..... (subClin vs Clin upon establishment of new K in SPS/PD2) Now, you can also de-ob line 0001 ( for example) and re-fund it on a new CLIN 0017 (for example). However, that starts getting confusing when you are in option periods. If you do it the way I learned to cope, you would only deob 0001AA and place the correct on 0001AB and the main CLIN remains Info.

dwrgerald-- not exactly--the money isn't lost. What we typically would do is zero subclin XXAA and create and place the funds on subclin XXAB, or whatever... The description of the services, etc is on the CLIN but the funds are on the subclins and you can create as many as needed, zero out one and add to another.

I have had this issue in SPS/PD2. Yes, this is a clerical issue and it is WRONG that a well-paid 1102 needs to deal with this. Anyway, my strategy when establishing a new contract in PD2 was to always make the CLINs "info only" and to price out and fund the SubCLINs--for the very reasons you are dealing with. I did not like this "work around", but it saved me headaches when this contracting officer had to modify a team member's contract while they were on leave or whatever and I had to re-do their schedule because of an LOA change. NO ONE understood this until they reached Post Award and they were dealing with LOA changes and what not. Oftentimes, if they did not set it up as described above in pre award, they had to revamp their entire CLIN structure (Sched because of the PD2 - LOA issue.

Hi-- we used default clause (249-10)when we were granting time and no money was involved....non-compensable.... EB