C Culham

Just in case, but I imagine you have, but have you done a deep dive in the "Recommended Reading" topic of this Forum? It might give you some possible ideas.

Random thoughts as more details would be helpful.... By any chance is FAR 52.217-8 in the parent IDI!Q contract? If so I would think one could extend the services of OY 3 for whatever the length that is stated in the -8 clause without having to excercise OY 4. You say IDIQ. If the parent IDIQ is the basis for your question why not exercise OY 4 and just ride it out to the end? I say this as typically the parent IDIQ obligates nothing including the requirement to issue task orders during the option period because generally it is the governments unilateral right to issue a task order. Heck I might even tell the contractor what I am up to for the sake of good communication and fairness. Example - We are exercising OY 4 but our plan is that no task orders will be issued after the first month of the new option. You also say SBIR. Was it a sole source SBIR? If so then then you might even consider just modifying by mutual agreement with the contractor the last optioin period (OY 4) of the contract. Of course things like maintaining the same cost structure, fee adjustment, and a bunch of other stuff comes into play. Remember any contract can be modified by mutual agreement of the parties.

Would have been my "thought".

Based on a cost account period that is the entites established fiscal year unless the government agrees to another annual period that is consistent with the contractors practices?

Ah yes but it seems the OP is referring to contracts subject to the FAR (by example references to DCAA, government and supply schedule) but that is just my read.

After all is said does not this reference basically support the discussion in this thread and answer the OP's question - FAR 31.203?

Sequence for "aspect"? Remove "typical"?

@DrewIn an attempt to offer clarity. My view.....and in a different order of your questions because they conflict, in my view, with each other. In. A CPSR is already determined to occur. The CPSR is not contract specific even though in your case it seems the GSA contract is driving the review. FAR 44.302 " Generally, a CPSR is not performed for a specific contract." Your company per your post receives TO's (aka contracts - FAR 2.101) that are not competitively awarded. Some are even T&M. You have not stated they are determined to be for commercial supplies/services or not. Therefore based how the TOs are being awarded I am guessing a conclusion was made by somebody that a CPSR was determined to be necessary. The TO's are not the decision point your subcontracts that support your government prime contracts (aka the TO's) are. FAR 44.303 subcontracts that support a prime contract that are "competitively awarded firm-fixed-price, competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment, or awarded for commercial supplies and commercial services pursuant to part 12." are excluded from the review. Also supported by https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/CPSR/CPSR_Guidebook_091021.pdf at page 85. Therefore any subcontract (including purchase orders FAR 2.101 as provided by FAR 52.244-2) that is competitively awarded FFP or FFP with EPA or is awarded for commercial supplies and services would not be included. All considered since the CPSR is of your system (P&P) and the CPSR team has some discretion in determining that the P&P is being followed. As such I suggest the team will ask you for a list of all subcontracts awarded. I also suggest they will request the subcontract information something like this - 1) That were specific to support of a Government prime contract (again the TO's), and show the type of contract awarded, and how it was awarded and whether it was a commercial contract. See page 4 of the Guide. Based on this list they will then stipulate what they want to look at. At the CPSR entrance briefing further clarification on "what" can be and should be clarified. All considered the basis for my earlier suggestion that most especially the CPSR team will guide you on what they want to see. PS - Working on this when @Neil Roberts replied and sending anyway.

Thanks. The OP did not, I did, should have clarified my post. A further read notes it is an exception only available to DOD, NASA and Coast Guard as further clarity on my part. I will attempt better clarity in the future.

Details out of context? Your assertion is only applicable if over the SAT by my read. FAR 13.106(a)(2)(iv)((A)(1). Has not under SAT been stipulated for this thread?

A firm fixed price contract. Basis for my reasoning.... Vern Edwards April 1, 2011 "Fixed" simply means no change except by specific and express agreement on a case-by-case basis. "Price" is a stipulated amount of payment in exchange for supplies delivered and accepted or services rendered and accepted. See, e.g., FAR 52.232-1. "Rate," in the context of this discussion, is an amount of dollars per unit. By unofficial convention, the term "rate" is used in the acquisition of services when the number of units of service to be bought (usually minutes, hours, etc.) cannot be fixed in advance and the parties agree to delivery on demand and payment for units delivered. (In government contracting, the actual number that the contractor is obligated to deliver and that the government is obligated to pay for is usually capped, so as to avoid violations of the anti-deficiency act. Such caps are sometimes referred to as a "ceiling" or "ceiling price.") While a "unit price" is in fact a "rate," the terms generally are not used synonymously. "Unit price" is most commonly used in supply and construction contracts, while "rate" is generally used in service contracts. 1. If a contract provides for payment of a fixed dollar amount per unit of a fixed quantity of a unit of supply, or a unit of service, or for completion of a construction project, then we ordinarily would say that it is a "fixed-price" contract (i.e., firm-fixed-price), because both the unit price and the number of units are fixed at the outset. 2. If a contract provides for payment of a fixed dollar amount per unit of a variable quantity of a unit of supply or unit construction work (e.g., cubic yards of excavation), we ordinarily would say it is a "fixed unit price" contract. 3. If a contract provides for payment of a fixed dollar amount per unit of a variable quantity of a service, we might call it a "fixed rate" or "fixed hourly rate" (or a "time-and-materials" or "labor hour") contract. All three arrangements are loosely called "fixed price, but only No. 1 is really so. Reference -

A little different twist but I think I am saying the same thing as previous responses. Yes you do a price or cost evaluation for a procurement using Simplified Acquisition Procedures that are under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold for the purpose of determining prcie reasonablness. That evaluation is a comparative evaluation to other costs or prices received from other quoters or offerors per the reference you have cited. The exception is if you have stated something otherwise in the solicitation ( see FAR 13.106-2(a)(2).

Would not the ACO along with the CPSR Audit team help you make this decision? Reference FAR 44.3? I pose the question in part not only based on Don's response along with a two fold thought. One - you say T&M for TO's and Two - sole source TOs where I suspect an ACO would want to see what's going on.

Same.

I have read the article a couple of times to digest it fully. Thanks to Vern for sharing and Bob for posting.

With the clarification a thought occurred to me that I believe would be beneficial with regard to Beginners Forum. Especially noted as in some cases questions are posed by other than a procurement official, say a contracting officers representative or another individual wondering why procurment did not do such and such. The thought. Once the RA's (Requesting Activiity) requisition goes to the acquisition office it makes good business sense that the RA's efforts do not stop there. The RA should be initmate with the resulting solicitation, evaluation and award no matter how simple to sophisticated the procurment is. A shared effort in my view by both the RA and procurment office. The basic example - here is what was requested by you (RA) and here is what we (procurement office) are doing to get it for you (RA). As boring as it may seem a read of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 1.102-1 through 5 is the reference. It could be a concept that is known and practiced and this one just missed the mark for some reason, but offered as a thought all the same. Yes, Happy New Year!

Consistent with FAR 15.503(b)(2))? Reference FAR 13.106-3(d). My point being if RFP then FAR part 15 is a must to some degree.

We do not disagree but avoided is how do you craft a RFP under FAR part 13? Using a simple example do you place any language in the RFP regarding debriefing and if so where do you grab it from?

Subtle and a long standing topic of discussion. I have always wondered what one would put in a RFP conducted under FAR part 13 if not some salient stuff that either was from or mimics FAR part 15 stuff. FAR part 2.101 "Offer means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract. Responses to invitations for bids (sealed bidding) are offers called "bids" or "sealed bids"; responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called "proposals"; however, responses to requests for quotations (simplified acquisition) are "quotations," not offers. For unsolicited proposals, see subpart 15.6." https://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum54.htm#:~:text=Although the normal procedure is,soliciting offers instead of quotes.

FAR 6.501 sets the sideboards.

Who knows without further details but it would seem FAR 8.405-6 (b) might be the best bet. (a)(1)(C) looks viable too based on the known facts. Doubt is ever in existence in Fedeal contracting - it just depends.

At first i was like "Really!" and then in thinking about it I could see where I could have been confused with regard to the post and what the "real" question was. That being said the real question that I guess was never really answered of you is - "What warranty clause from FAR subpart 46.7 is in the awarded contract?" If the answer is none then I would sugggest strongly that the warranty for the work is then limited to "implied warranties of merchantability and fitness". Reference - FAR 46.706(b)(1)(iii). To unravel some confusion your stated attempt at providing a quote from 52.246-4(e) by my read (without seeing the whole contract) speaks to inspecition of any warranty work. In other words if warranty work has to be done then (e) applies to that warranty work whether you have an express warranty in the contract or if there is none then it would apply to implied warranty work as applicable. I hope these thoughts help you figure it out.

I am going to make your life difficult since this in not the Beginners Forum. Can't it be a FAR part 12 procurment using FAR part 15 for evaluation and award? I agree with ji, forget about systems. And for me think about your approach instead much like Joel has advised. And bluntly make it a commercial sevice. Think about and apply FAR 12.404, evaluate offerors in part on their stated express warranty. And as final offering is here my quick one minute market research to make it so.... https://sam.gov/opp/d2b0841f04874b34af1c911e80c38ba8/view Good luck!

Thank you for coming back! If I were the CO I would have required a new procurement. My only decision point would be whether I would use FAR 8.405-6 or FAR 13.106-1(b). Done, no legal, no hand wringing a fix for a RA screw up. The light bulb went on for the RA. So sad too bad, as I would conclude the scope was radios with no intention stated in a requisition and the ensuing order that accessories "might" be needed. It was just buying radios. The basic rule (emphasis added) - "Evidence of a material difference is found by reviewing the circumstances attending the procurement that originally was conducted, examining any changes in the type of work, performance period, or costs between the contract as awarded and as modified, and considering whether the original solicitation adequately advised offerors of the potential for the type of work contemplated by the modification." Reference - Chase Supply, Inc. B-411528.2, B-411529.2: Dec 7, 2015 (pdf) found at the following link with many other decisions regarding scope. https://www.wifcon.com/pd6_001.htm The inclusion of a 52.243-1 is a red herring. GSA FSS contracts typically contain a changes statement pursuant to FAR Clause 52.212-4 which I will go out on a limb and say was in the GSA FSS that was used. Moving from one changes clause to another does not signify anything other that on one hand the change needs to be by agreement of both parties or a unilateral right of the government. Adding 52.243-1 also seems inconsistent with both GSA FSS and a otherwise commercial product buy. To fix the bad planning and requisitioning on the RA's part a new procurment is the fix and I would suggest a candid and truthful statement to the file would have adequately covered the matter. Done, no legal no hand wringing and no trying to appease the RA for their error. Yes, my response was not complete with regard to this matter. Taking the easy way out by providing this reference to a thread I recalled. It might help you do further research and thinking about "closed".

Of interest in attempting to answer your question is whether this acquisition will be conducted pursuant to FAR past 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products or Services) As noted by others whether a FAR past 12 procurement or otherwise I beleive one could deliniate whether a warranty would apply only to the work or not. I know of no such regulation and have researched to see if I could find such a regulation and did not.