C Culham

I did say this. To clarify "effort" could mean more than time such as materials, equipment But I did not say this. My post may have implied it but my use of "work defined" was to set the parameters of why a level of effort type contract (per the FAR) is needed. My apology for the confusion. Yes in a general view they are as they require level of effort. But doesn't every contract? It would seem the difference between any contract is with regard to how the cost or pricing of the the effort will be paid to the contractor. No biggy but I got 34 results back in my search.

Nope. Example - Work can not be clearly defined. There is agreed to sideboards by the parties on the effort with it acknowledged that the effort will accomplish the intended result. Contract is for 6 months yet the effort needed to accomplish the result in the stated 6 months is only 3 months because folks won't be "working" on weekends, holidays, inclement weather, fire prevention levels, birthdays, fish runs, etc. etc.

The amount of effort expressed in a contract to be utilized by a contractor to accomplish the contract. Effort level can be stated in minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or maybe even years.

I am thinking really hard to provide a reasoned response. I do need clarity. Looking at comments in the thread already is the "contract" a BPA or a IDIQ? By my read it is the former based on this line in the protest - "challenging the award of two Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)".

With the details provided it is my view it is what the contract states as that is the intent of contract isn't it? I could see where the agency could say something in the contract that today we need palm readers to complete what is at hand today and then the next day we believe we have needs for the pop-up to accomplish the need. Contract language would tell me if such requests would be allowed. I will also say that setting up a labor hour contract in such a manner could be contrary to the general view that a labor hour contract does not buy hours it buys services to accomplish something where it is "not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence" (Quote from the FAR regarding application of labor hour contracts). This reference is dated but it is a good read, it might help you further. The Time-and-Materials Contract: The Time Has Come For A Long, Hard Look Go here https://www.wifcon.com/analysis.htm scroll down to 2004 and find this article, it might help explain how LH is to work but it may not be how the agency thought their contract should work.. While it is about T&M the concepts apply to LH.

Contract? Seems GAO is confused. I thought they reasoned BPA's issued per GSA FSS are not contracts?

Quick search...1981 and 1991. https://www.gao.gov/assets/510/500823.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/440/434303.pdf

Agreed. My recollection is that in the move its use was implied to be imperative to provide ease for contractors in viewing solicitations/contracts across all agencies so stuff was essentially in the same place. And the format of FAR 12.303 is built upon (my terminology) in FAR clasue 52.212-4 paragraph (s) Order of Precedence. Even the small ones by my experience attempt UCF but are organized poorly and provide in some cases of conflicts that could not/cannot be solved by a simple application of paragraph (s) of 52.212-4. Consistency is the key and agencies should consider a waiver to paragraph (s) that provides for use of full UCF at the discreation of the CO. I never understood why FAR 12 departed from UCF for commercial product/item as in my experience there is no real uniform contract format in the commercial market place. I guess I could be wrong but the commercial terms and conditions I have viewed suggest no consistency across the commercial market place. Overall I have always thought the UCF was good as well but it seems the "to the maximum..." is read as an imperative rather than discreationary.

No you did not. I can't find it unless it was in your opening post where you gave a global thank you for anyone willing to offer thoughts. As to the rest of your post, oh well!

Yep, but I guess we do not get a "A" for effort. Your wealth of recall and knowledge is a leg up, yet it is frustrating when, especially when not in the Beginners Forum, references are provided that provide "magic bullet"and if researched the references would lead to the "more to it" and why there is no magic bullet. I do not know and will not explore but I wonder if the question posed to "AI" would generate an answer the OP would accept a face value without having to do future research?

Bluntly. What? You asked for "FAR References" that supported that the concept was ingrained in FAR. It seems your want a magic bullet and you are not goingto get one in my view as it flat out depends in every instant case. The magic of Federal contracting. And I might add that is why in a general statement on my part, depending on case law as noted in the thread I provided earlier, does not get the matter of the concept of consideration. Have a great day!

How about FAR 45.301 and 3.705(e). I will not go further other than to remind you that you can easily search the FAR these days.

Chapter 41 of the DCAA Selected Area of Cost Guidebook points to other FAR Part 31 references that one may want to consider. Patrick you may have already accessed the reference but providing the link anyways. https://www.dcaa.mil/Guidance/Selected-Area-of-Cost-Guidebook/

Deleted seems the OP has found a way forward.

Other than commercial product or service.

Have read through this thread?

My read of the regulation suggests a CO may question the representation at anytime so Joel's suggestion to contact the CO might work. Truly a egregious representation. Maybe the agency OIG? Maybe your congressional representatives?

I apologize I just saw this. My thought is this... Leaving the decision to the CO is trouble some. Many COs and the contract writing systems they use have trouble getting the right clause in a contract. Imagine having to review a statue to determine application. Examples. Does not this wording make SCA applicable - 41 U.S.C. chapter 6702. ". .applies to any contract or bid specification for a contract, whether negotiated or advertised, that..." Likewise The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by my recollection (did not research) had a requirement that any project private or public that used its fund must use USA steel.

Interesting view when you consider that the DoD OTA guidance states this on page 10. Seems management has not adequately defined the "who" for a successful OTA effort. ""AOs need not be Contracting Officers, unless required by the Component’s appointment process. Each Component is responsible for determining the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and/or Component provided courses AOs are required to complete. DAU has offerings online as well as virtually led by instructors on OTs for members of the Government team. BEST PRACTICE: As the Standard Form 1402– Certificate of Appointment cites the FAR as the authority for a warrant, it is best practice to either edit this certificate for AO warrants or create a custom letter type document." I guess by "Component" they mean as defined by 2 CFR 1125.937 and if so think of the confusion! But who knows?

I believe no one can answer your question without seeing the task order AND the parent contract under which it has been issued. My suggestion is that you get the parent contract read it completely. I suspect doing so will answer your questions.

Quick read article with link to DoDs OTA Guidance. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2024/02/dod-dispelling-lingering-myths-about-otas/?readmore=1

Yes! I hope no one uses this statement as market research as I would suggest it really depends on the company, and even for a individual company it might depend on the employee and purpose of travel.

None. Reread it it please. It was a offhand remark to Don's post that Government folks should be allowed to fly business class.

Well as the thread has departed from the original post I might as well respond to @Don Mansfield lastest comment on business class travel. I find it interesting that the lead sentence of the regualtion (Title 41 CFR 301-10.103) regarding other than coach applies a "prudent person" standard yet the following paragraphs to the sentence do not support such a standard. Afterall I as a prudent person in doing personal business do consider comfort on any flight I take. Comfort is not allowed in bureaucratic terms it seems. "301-10.103 When may I use other than coach class accommodations? You are required to exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business when making official travel arrangements. ..."

@joel hoffman @here_2_help I had this additional thought. It probably has no nexus to travel, and I do not want to open another can of worms, so I will offer my thought as quickly and concisely as possible. Application of Service Contract Act. Again no conncection to travel but it is interesting to me that those that calibrate equipment can be exempted from SCA. FAR 52.222-51. Same basis of thought as expressed by here-2-help or just some labor thing that has made its way into the USDOL regulation, I did not research so who knows. Yet extending the line of thinking to travel if business travel is a market or catalog thing could not the ideal of 52.222-51 help justify as to why, if I was still a CO, a contractor's travel policies, especially if a stipulated catalog price or a confirmed market price , help support the business travel. Dumb comparison or not it would not stop me from putting this conclusion in a fair and reasonable price determination and then leave it to higher up legal or court of opinion to decide it it was dumb or not.