Captain2722

I received a FFP service contract for engineering support for administration. The key personnel only worked 2 weeks in March before retiring and wasn't replaced until the second week in April, leaving us without contractor support for 3 weeks. The contractor just submitted an invoice for "full payment" as if the key personnel worked the entire 4 weeks of March. My instincts tell me we are being cheated out of some time, but I feel like the contractor is allowed to bill for the entire amount since this is a FFP contract. Can anyone clarify this for me? Obviously with a T&M/LH contract things would be different.

I've been purchasing a certain supply for a while that has generally been considered a "commercial" item. Based on the FAR definition, I believe this supply should be considered a "non-developmental" item. The question is, why does it really matter what I call it in the end? Isn't Part 12 still used when dealing with NDI's? Are there any specific FAR regulations, provisions/clauses, etc. directly related to NDI's? Is there any other added benefit to referring to it as an NDI? Please don't read this in a condescending tone...I genuinely don't know and don't want to make a huge fuss out of nothing.

The quantity is there, the quality is not. Start failing people in these training classes and we'll find out quickly who actually KNOWS the material, not just the folks able to find it in their binder. It amazes me how some of the people in DAU/FAI classes "pass" and become certified. It is harming the contracting community now, and it will be even worse when those people are in GS-13/14/15 positions and have the knowledge & experience as a GS-7 still.

In a lot of T&M/LH contracts, it will say "not to exceed: 1880 hrs" or establish a "ceiling" of $188,000.00. As Vern stated, this is not a guaranteed amount.

A few things I have learned to love about CO's that I work with: 1. CO's that give the CS room to work and grow without much supervision. Can't learn anything when the CO is the one always making decisions and just telling you what to do. 2. CO's that are responsive and prompt when reviewing documents. Maybe this is just my selfish attitude, but it's always nice receiving a response the same day you give the CO something for review. 3. CO's that ask the "Why? How come? Show Me."

Vern, this sounds like a nightmare for most people!

Post your response here... In all seriousness, what is your top quality that you look for in a Contracting Officer and why do you consider it so important (i.e. FAR knowledge, people skills, level of involvement)?

Update: I was on board with ordering off this BPA still until the CO decided they wanted to change the language from "ordering period" to "option period". If this BPA was issued in 2011 with "option periods" we surely haven't exercised any options since then! What troubles me most is that the CO believes you can exercise option period 3 without ever exercising option periods 1 & 2. As the CS, I want to do this the right way. I don't want to just give it to the CO even though I know they'll sign it. Question is: what is the right way??

The solicitation was issued in August 2011 (after the FAR changes were made). The BPA was awarded under Part 8.

I just received a PR for items to be ordered off a BPA. The BPA was awarded Sept 2011 as a single-award BPA with 5 ordering periods (not option periods). According to FAR 8.405-3(d)(2), "A single-award BPA shall not exceed one year. It may have up to four one-year options." So my question is, would I even be allowed to order off this BPA since it was written incorrectly and doesn't include option periods? Is this even a valid BPA?