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

2,216 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 modernization of an end item or component of an end item, which in any way changes or improves the original purpose or operational capacity in relation to effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, or safety of that item. This includes, but is not limited to, conversions, field fixes, retrofits, remanufactures, redesigns, upgrades, extended service programs, engineering changes, software revisions, system enhancement programs, service life extension programs, system improvement programs, product improvement programs, preplanned product improvements, modifications developed and applied by contractors as part of a prime vendor support (PVS) or contractor logistics support (CLS). Which is included in the PWS along with repair terminology.
  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 way changes or improves the original purpose or operational capacity in relation to effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, or safety of that item. This includes, but is not limited to, conversions, field fixes, retrofits, remanufactures, redesigns, upgrades, extended service programs, engineering changes, software revisions, system enhancement programs, service life extension programs, system improvement programs, product improvement programs, preplanned product improvements, modifications developed and applied by contractors as part of a prime vendor support (PVS) or contractor logistics support (CLS). Which is included in the PWS along with repair terminology.
  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 PWS allows for the negotiation of each discreate modification/upgrade as they do become known is allowable. A for instance is a particular technology is becoming obsolete, so a tech refresh is required, which will not only replace current capability, but increase performance envelope. In order for the system to remain viable this has to be done, but the contracting office contends a market research, J&A, etc.. etc..will have to be done in order to have the same contractor do x modification/upgrade. In other words, a seperate contract might need to be awarded to upgrade a system, for which we already have a contractor logistics support contractor supporting performing maintenance on. I suggest otherwise.
  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 production), according to the DoDFMR & AR 750-10, are to be done via Modification Work Order versus ECP pre- DD Form 250. The Federal Acquisition Regulation does not mention MWO only ECP. The question is what is the correct process contractually on a CLS contract, which contemplates modification work to incorporate a technology increment, block upgrade, etc that will increase the performance envelope. Is it considered having been contemplated in the original scope (although not proposed), negotiated with current contractor for said work and modified into the contract through the changes clause? Is it new work, J&A’d to be performed by current contractor and modified into the contract through the changes clause? Or is it new work requiring competition? All different philosophies considered at our acquisition center. In my opinion, either of the first two are reasonable.
  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 under the umbrella of Contractor Logistics Support services; however, modifications, which increase the performance envelope, are generally not known in advance and generally require appropriations other than O&M. Thus, limiting the ability to provide data necessary to include in a solicitation for offerrors to propose on for a CLS requirement. My question is can you contemplate the type of work associated with the modifications, that increase the performance envelope, without having them proposed on as a part of the original contract award and use an ECP type process to negotiate a price for these increased capabilities? The train of thought is yes, because modifications are contemplated under a CLS services effort or no because it would be considered new work and a J&A would have to be completed for each and every increase in capability. The second thought process does not make sense to me because the current contractor is already performing a baseline of maintenance services on X aircraft, vehicle, whatever with the resources on staff. To write a J&A for each and every effort associated with increased capability does not make sense. Nor does competing each and every increase in capability and potentially having a different contractor performing the associated work. The only sensible approach is using an ECP like process, and the reason I say like process, is as I understand only used on systems that are in production, while MWO's are used for out of production systems. If none, of these paths are correct please advise.
  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 provides for modifications, but they are not know at the time of award. The awarded contract is for a baseline of services with language to allow for modifications. The contracting office believes whatever modifications/upgrades become necessary during the performance period would be considered new work requiring a J&A, etc. Conceptually increasing the contract cost without limit. This is obviously something that is dealt with on a daily in many weapons system PM offices, but I am simply not familiar with the process. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...