duke38

I was hoping someone else went thru the same thing and found a way around it by doing something like changing the PoP to 30 September. If anyone has any references or remedies I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks

I have a question in reference to funding a option. I recieved the following email from my program office yesterday "since the PoP for the contract ends on 12/21/2013, when is the earliest that we could exercise the next Option Year (12/22/2013 – 12/21/2014)?? If we could issue the extension in September, then that would allow us to obligate the remaining funds while they are still available to us…" The jest of the question is can we exercise the option and obligate the funding in this fiscal year while we have funding as opposed to waiting until next fiscal to do so once this years funding has expired. Initially i thought no way because the performance has to also start in this fiscal year also. I did some research on forward funding and severable services but cannot seem to come across a definative answer. Has someone else had this problem and if so how did you overcome it. Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Its a individual task order under a multiple award contract

Hello all, We awarded a single award task order for services under a IDIQ contract on the 28th of September. We sent out debriefing to the unsuccessfull offerors on the 9th of October. We were informed by one of the unsuccessfull offerors that they intended to protest and indeed they did file a protest with GAO on the 12th of October, however my agency has not recieved any official notice from GAO that this award has been protested. According to FAR 33-104 © 1 and 5, if an agency recieves notice outside the 5 day window of prescribed debriefing that agency need not suspend performance of awarded contract. My question is which agency is the FAR reffering to the GAO or the contracting agency. We really would like to find a way to keep the performance of the awarded contract in place. Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Ok I have question pertaining to this statement out of the FAR: 33.104 -- Protests to GAO (f) GAO decision time. GAO issues its recommendation on a protest within 100 days from the date of filing of the protest with the GAO, or within 65 days under the express option. The GAO attempts to issue its recommendation on an amended protest that adds a new ground of protest within the time limit of the initial protest. If an amended protest cannot be resolved within the initial time limit, the GAO may resolve the amended protest through an express option. Who can request a protest be expidited to 65 days?

Its valued at $32mil and its a multiple award service task order.

We just awarded a service contract with performance beginning 1 March 2012 under a IDIQ contract with the winner being someone other than the incumbent contractor. Now the incumbent has filed a protest on a long list of things. This me and my CO first protest and we don't know where to begin. I looked for the Stop work clause in the base IDIQ for the winner but its not there. Any suggestions on where we should begin this protest. Thanks

Yes I get it, the problem is as I mentioned in my first post these funds are FY10 so they expire FY12 which is this Saturday so these funds will not be valid to put oncontract as the availibility period will have expired.

Since my FY10 RDT&E expires 1 October this year it looks like i will not be able to use this funding because the POP is 28 Sept 11 to 27 Sept 12. Thanks

I am buying Acquisition Services (Pre-award and Post-award support)

I have FY10 RDT&E funding for a service contract that we are trying to award on 28 September. This contract is considered severable. My question is; am I allowed to use this funding. The reason I ask is because the FAR addresses annual funding can be used across FYs but RDT&E is not Annual funding and the funds that I have are about to expire 1 Oct 2011. I'm not sure if I can obligate this multi year funding across FYs. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Yea that just it, they cannot determine when or how many weeks they will need and we are stuck with FFP. We thought about making two CLINs 1 on a 3 day work week and 1 for the other 2 days but it i still dont see how to acurately do this without having a predetermined work week.

I am working on an FFP 8a contract to buy services in the form of hours. The contractor will be required to work part time 3 days a week (24hrs) with the ability to work to work full time 5 days a (40hr). I am trying to figure out how to base my CLINS on this method so the contractor can get paid. I know a T&M would fit this type of contract but that would take an act of congress to get passed in my organization and the PO is dead set against it. Has anyone dealt with a similar type situation, if so how did you breakout your CLINS?

Here is what i am getting from the program office on why they are using RDT&E funding: "Dan - as requested, below are a few points WRT why this contract is not OMA funded. Bottom line: The required acquisition support services are needed to help us acquire new systems. These are new programs, i.e., new capabilities.so how can the acquisition of an SI to develop these new capabilities be OMA funded? Regardless of the types of services we're requesting, there's no way this is an OMA bill. The scope of the required acquisition support services we need to put on contract are for P2P, SA, and Labor Tracking, which are all pre Milestone B initiatives, which means they are not deployed, which means they are to be RDTE funded. We cannot use OMA funding prior to deployment. Furthermore, we don't have OMA funding for these project (for the previously stated reasons)." Here is an insert I got from the Appropriation Usage for Information Technology: c. Expense/Investment Threshold: As a general rule, the O&M appropriation is used for expense items (sustainment ? repair and maintenance; and items or systems under the threshold of $250K) to include infrastructure. OPA appropriation is used for investment items/systems that exceed the $250K threshold. RDT&E appropriation is used for both expenses and investment items that involve research and development (R&D) type activities (no threshold). This seems to me that they are authorized to use RDT&E funding. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your help.

I work for the DOD (Army). I gave the lawyer a copy of this excert: (G. Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support. This budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation. Test ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test aircraft and ships, and studies and analyses in support of the RDT&E program are funded in this budget activity. Costs of laboratory personnel, either in-house or contractor operated, would be assigned to appropriate projects or as a line item in the Basic Research, Applied Research, or ATD program areas, as appropriate. Military construction costs directly related to major development programs are included) and he says its OMA, but me and the KO interpet this as stating any effort that supports an RDT&E program qualifies for RDT&E funding. Even though this contract is for pre award/post awrd support for this RDT&E program. If anyone knows any examples or any place else I can look for answers to support my theory it would be greatly appreciated.

I work for the DOD (Army). I gave the lawyer a copy of this excert: (G. Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support. This budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation. Test ranges, military construction, maintenance support of laboratories, operation and maintenance of test aircraft and ships, and studies and analyses in support of the RDT&E program are funded in this budget activity. Costs of laboratory personnel, either in-house or contractor operated, would be assigned to appropriate projects or as a line item in the Basic Research, Applied Research, or ATD program areas, as appropriate. Military construction costs directly related to major development programs are included) and he says its OMA, but me and the KO interpet this as stating any effort that supports an RDT&E program qualifies for RDT&E funding. Even though this contract is for pre award/post awrd support for this RDT&E program. If anyone knows any examples or any place else I can look for answers to support my theory it would be greatly appreciated.

I am working on a 8a contract and the Program office wants to appy RDT&E funding to this contract because the entire program is in the the development stage. The Contractor shall provide all necessary professional acquisition services (from pre-award to post-award) required to support the program office in awarding a contract to get this development program up and running. My question is since this contractor is not doing any RDT&E functions does this qualify for RDT&E Funding?

I have a new Delivery Order (40) for CLINs 0704 and 0709 of an single award IDIQ FFP with TM contract. There is range pricing built into these two CLINs. However since the award date there were two mods that were done under DO 12 and 18 that increased these range prices. The mods clearly states that these new prices applies to year 4 through 7, however I am being told that since these mods were to the DO and not the base contract, I cannot use these prices for my new DO. Is this true and if so what are my options? Thanks

I have a Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) that requires the contractor to introduce a alternative version of tactical headsets. Reading through their proposal to this ECP I see that they are proposing travel under ODCs. They claim that travel will be required from time to time over the performance period inorder to address technical, quality and contractual issues as well as drive subcontractor performance to support contractual delivery obligations. They are requesting that a 0.00772 be added onto the unburdened material value. My questions is should the government be paying for the contractor to travel to their subcontractors?

Thanks for your help

The item was a seperatley priced deliverable item that was used as a component to build a end item. The original item was coated in gold at $100 each now the specifications has changed to silver coated items at $90 each. Keep in mind the contractor had found the gold coated items at $50 each because of a mistake in their pricing. They delivered some of the $50 gold coated item and now that the government issued a change order for silver coated items at $90 each the contractor wants an equitable adjustment.

The item was a seperatley priced item that was used as a component to build a end item. The original item was coated in gold at $100 each now the specifications has changed to silver coated items at $90 each. Keep in mind the contractor had found the gold coated items at $50 each because of a mistake in their pricing. They delivered some of the $50 gold coated item and now that the government issued a change order for silver coated items at $90 each the contractor wants an equitable adjustment.

You are close. The $100 price was agreed upon at the start of the contract without any certified current cost signed by the contractor. However the contractor made a mistake in the $100 estimate, they were able to get the item for $50, however after a short perfomance period the government has since issued a change order for an replacement item that is estimated to cost $90. What should the equitable adjustment be if at all?

Has anyone ever had a case where the contractor agreed on a certain price for an item then during contract performance they were able to find that item considerably cheaper so they delivered the cheaper version which was acceptable, however a change order was issued for a different syle item at a price that was higher than what the contractor found but it was still cheaper than what was agreed upon in the base contract. Is the contractor entitled to an equitable adjustment even though the change order item is still cheaper than the original contract? Also the contractor did not have to sign a certificate of current cost. If there are any GAO cases similar to this or any websites that would have information please let me know so I can research this as much as possible. Thanks

Good morning my fellow acquisition professionals. I have a question in reference to the Task Order I recently exercised the option year 1 on. I recieved a CDR from DFAS stating that I cannot have two different payment offices on 1 task order. On this particular task order which is for travel offices around the country, includes COEs which are not paid by DFAS, COEs have their own payment offices and are not paid by DFAS. My question is; is this true, if so how can I fix this with out doing another Task Order for the COE CLINs? Thanks in advance for your help.