JandA100811

That does say to the maximum extent practicable right? I did not realize that means you shall not have a PWS in a level of effort scenario. I think some CO discretion can be used here as well.

I am confused as well, I am interested as to where you are coming to the conclusion a performance based acquisition cannot consist of a number of hours. 37.601 General. ( B ) Performance-based contracts for services shall include— (1) A performance work statement (PWS); (2) Measurable performance standards (i.e., in terms of quality, timeliness, quantity, etc.) and the method of assessing contractor performance against performance standards; and (3) Performance incentives where appropriate. When used, the performance incentives shall correspond to the performance standards set forth in the contract (see 16.402-2) As long as all of the above is included in our performance based contract and our PWS meets the definition in 37.602 that you outline in post #32, then what is the issue?

Because the required results is a level of effort, nothing is being delivered at the end of the period of performance, we are buying a level of effort (hours) ie. support services like FAR 16.306(d)(2) states.

This begs another question why should we not have a PWS in a level of effort term contract? I realize the definition of a PWS in FAR 2.101, however, this by all accounts is a Performance Based Acquisition under FAR 37.6. Furthermore FAR 37.602 ( describes what shall be included in the PWS to the maximum extent practicable, all of which I would think could be described in a Level of Effort PWS. For example we can ask in our solicitation for the contractor to propose a QASP which describes how their performance should be measured against the requirements of the PWS using metrics such as performance, schedule, cost control etc., and set measurable performance standards that way.

Thanks for your patience on this one this pretty much directly answers my question.

Ok, to further clarify the level of effort was written into the order just not where I was used to seeing it. So Vern going back to your post #18 a requested increase in this level of effort by the customer would be a change in scope? I guess I was not thinking about scope in terms of hours but in terms of the additional work being requested due to the unknowns that remains in scope of the PWS. It is not an overrun scenario by the contractor. Thanks again.

Yes, the contract is a CPFF level of effort terms as described in FAR 16.306(d)(2). The contract does not expressly require the contractor to deliver a specified level of effort, the level of effort was just something in the contractors proposal.

Point taken in regards to the CPFF completion contract and I understand that. I am just having a tough time seeing how we would automatically rule my example out of scope. The reason this task order was solicited as CPFF is because there were many unknowns, the proposed level of effort and corresponding dollars seems like an estimate to me and if the level of effort were to increase and still in the realm of the scope of the PWS, how would this be in violation of CICA and require a J&A? The work being added is within the scope of what was intended when the PWS was written. To me this seems kind of grey. Thanks for your input.

Correct, the "ceiling" is the level of effort. The increase in the level of effort is not due to a change in scope but more due to the unknowns of a cost type contract. The customer is requiring more hours due to additional work within scope of the PWS for this CPFF term effort. Please let me know if I am not being clear enough in explaining this.

The level of effort being increased is expressed as hours, it is a CPFF term effort so those hours are tied directly to cost.

"Ceiling" was not the right term, sorry I am used to T&M. The increase the customer is requesting is in level of effort for work within scope of the task order.

Guys, thanks for the input and there would be no scope increase. I will review those clauses. In the past I have seen the contractor notify us when there is a limitation of funds, just was different coming from the customer I guess. The POP ends in about 6 months and there is an option, I would say at this point it is 50 percent funded for the base year.

I am fairly new to Contracting only a few years into my career and new to CPFF type contracts. My customer is requesting an increase of ceiling of work within the PWS. We told the customer the contractor can exceed the ceiling at their own risk unless approved by the Contracting Officer and if increasing the ceiling is necessary adequate justification is necessary. I am not sure the steps to be taken or how to direct the customer in this situation. Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks.

I am fairly new to Contracting only a few years into my career and new to CPFF type contracts. My customer is requesting an increase of ceiling of work within the PWS. We told the customer the contractor can exceed the ceiling at their own risk unless approved by the Contracting Officer and if increasing the ceiling is necessary adequate justification is necessary. I am not sure the steps to be taken or how to direct the customer in this situation. Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks.

Joel to me the scope and terms of the Task Order are laid out in the PWS, the Request for Technical Proposal, and the Basic Contract. I could be wrong but I think in us soliciting this Task Order they are proposing to our terms laid out and in turn we are accepting their offer, which makes me feel it could be issued unilaterally (although I have not found a cite). Also our PWS says work shall commence upon shall commence upon issuance of the TO by the Contracting Officer.

Thanks Carl, that does make sense. The PWS actually states the "Contractor work shall commence only after issuance of the Task Order by the Contracting Officer." I think that answers my POP question. It almost seems pointless to get a contractor signature at this point. I am also searching for a cite that may indicate it is the Government unilateral right to issue a TO.

The agency I work for a couple weeks back awarded a Task Order off of our multiple award IDIQ contract. It was distributed and signed by the Contracting Officer with the POP being the day it was signed/awarded by the KO. However, the Contractor never signed it because they were holding out until we agreed to add attachments (the Contracting Officer is reluctant to add) to the Task Order, they also did not start work because they did not think the Task Order was effective until they signed. I guess my question is when does the POP begin and does the Contracting Officer have the right to unilaterally award this? The Contracting Officer still wants the contractor's signature on the Task Order. It also seems if the Contracing Officer wanted this bilateral he would of had the Contractor sign first. Any insight or guidance on this would help.