Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

PMDave

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PMDave

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

2,351 profile views
  1. Don, something happened when I pasted previous reply. Hope this one is better. Don, The contract is being awarded as a task order under an ID/IQ contract. The contract does require the contractor to perform modifications, but the particular modifications are not know at this point (solicitation phase). The modifications are a result of required upgrades, obsolescence, and or tech refresh. The PWS does communicate the need to perform modifications. I like to stick with terminology that has been codified, in this case, from the AR 750-10. A modification is any alteration, conversion, or moderniz
  2. Don, The contract is being awarded as a task order under an ID/IQ contract. The contract does require the contractor to perform modifications, but the particular modifications are not know at this point (solicitation phase). The modifications are a result of required upgrades, obsolescence, and or tech refresh. The PWS does communicate the need to perform modifications. I like to stick with terminology that has been codified, in this case, from the AR 750-10. A modification is any alteration, conversion, or modernization of an end item or component of an end item, which in any wa
  3. Retreadfed, I am talking about both, modifications to the system, which would require a modifcation to the contract to include the respective scope and $ negotiated for the particular modification/upgrade. The contracting office takes issue that the modifications/upgrades are not known at this point, so there is no way the contractor can propose. This point is not contended, but the fact that there will be modifications/upgrades, within the framework of the system, described in general terms in the PWS is known. I suggest that the fact that modifications/upgrades are contemplated within the PW
  4. Joel, You are correct with what you deciphered from the intial post, but disregard the term aircraft, because the PM, in which I work, specializes in systems within an aircraft. Let's just use the term system X. You are also correct that modifications that increase the performance envelope, generally require RDT&E appropriations for IOT&E and Procurement to buy the kits, while the standard O&S maintenance is done using O&M. The main point of the question is we have a system X, post production, which is important because modifications to a system after DD250 or acceptance (post
  5. Let me start by stating the term modification will be used in a few different contexts in this posting, as follows: Modification-As defined associated in Army Regulations, not the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as a repair type procedure "within the current performance envelope" and a modification that "increases the current performance envelope." Important because the distinction has implications with respect to the type of appropriations used for the modification. Contract modification means any written change in the terms of a contract. Modifications are considered as one of the elements u
  6. I am working to get a contract awarded for contractor logistics supprt. Included in the contract is the unit level and depot level support, which is funded by O&M. The contract will be awarded as a CPFF for X dollars. The question rests in the whether or not we can negotiate FFP modifications, when they become necessary or known through the changes clause processing them through an ECP type process. The reason I say ECP type process, is because an ECP is associated with pre-fielding or production. MWO is the process used once fielded. The scope includes language and depot maintenance provi
×
×
  • Create New...