JMG

Ask your contracting officer. I am sure people will tell you methods, but it might be of little value if your agency/ department/ PCO is used to certain approaches. You may want to come back onto this board for further advice once you have a baseline, or questions from that conversation.

H2H, not sure if that was a facetious questions or not, but the answer is Ash Carter. BBP is pretty front and center for DOD acquisition. Some of the initiatives started from 2010 have become policy, such as DFARS 215.371- Only One Offeror. While not policy, use of FPI contracts are in- vogue.

Isn't it a contract upon PO issuance? No performance needs to take place to create a contract. Both parties are obligated.

This is really interesting. The only real thing they could do a comparative cost analysis, as they state cost reasonableness will be determined, is with the direct rate and maybe profit. There is no value in seeing your buildup of the indirects, from my pricing opinion, in a competitive environment. What would they be comparing these costs to? I certainly hope not to other vendors indirect costs. It seems like a commercial item. That being said I think you can use the "market adjustment" or simply call it a "margin" be it positive or negative. Would love to hear how it shakes out.

Ultimately, rounding as you describe is not an issue.

Another case where the answer is obvious and FAR based. Thanks Vern.

Can't answer that. You will have to ask ASN promulgators. My Agency regulations permit it per FAR 6.304(c ) : NMCARS 5206.303-1 (FAR 6.303-1) Requirements. (d) A class J&A is required when a class of contract actions will be executed for the same or related supplies or services that require essentially identical justification. Multiyear contracts and contracts with priced options are considered individual contract actions. A class of contracts includes but is not limited to: (i) a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) and orders to be issued under it

It is a common practice to have a class J&A for a BOA. Each order must be synopsized, which differs from the IDIQ (FAR 16.5). The J&A addresses CICA concerns. Each order must be covered under the description of supplies/services of the J&A, under the market research conducted for that J&A, and under the approved value.

Good discussion. I'm not aware of a blended solution, and tend to think that cannot exist simply based on the requirement being either 1) performance based or 2) Level of effort (A&AS) You either have a true need for a performance based solution, or you have a need to augment or aid governmental functions (what I like to call a warm body in a seat). The latter is typically procured by soliciting a total number of hours to be provided. You may see service efforts where the CO may try to fit the proverbial square peg in round hole-combining AA&S and performance based into one contract. It just doesn't work. This is based on my experience.

Yes, but we sure see a lot of it.

I asked the question for a reason. It would be applicable if it was a provision. Assuming 52.237-10 is a requirement in future solicitations from the buying agency, then the contractor would be required to account for these hours for estimating purposes. Yes, I quoted the prescription and the provision is new as of March 2015.

Was this provision applicable on your contract? The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.237-10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, in all solicitations valued above the simplified acquisition threshold, for professional or technical services to be acquired on the basis of the number of hours to be provided. 37.115 -- Uncompensated Overtime. 37.115-1 -- Scope. The policies in this section are based on Section 834 of Public Law 101-510 (10 U.S.C. 2331). 37.115-2 -- General Policy. (a) Use of uncompensated overtime is not encouraged. (B ) When professional or technical services are acquired on the basis of the number of hours to be provided, rather than on the task to be performed, the solicitation shall require offerors to identify uncompensated overtime hours and the uncompensated overtime rate for direct charge Fair Labor Standards Act -- exempt personnel included in their proposals and subcontractor proposals. This includes uncompensated overtime hours that are in indirect cost pools for personnel whose regular hours are normally charged direct.

CAS applicability implications. Does your company have a disclosure statement? Answer could be in there.

competitive or sole source contract?

Yes, you are correct in your assumptions, Vern. I was looking for a "smoking gun" of sorts. It is interesting that IDIQ CAS applicability may be dictated by the terms of the contract. One would think it would be engrained in statute or policy. It would be helpful if the FAR 30.202-6b phrase "CAS-covered contract" were defined in FAR 30.001, but it is not. I am inclined to abide by the definition of a contract in FAR 2.101 where I interpret each delivery order to be a contract, which is then applicable to the CAS. Just my thought process. Agree this could be clarified in the terms of the contract to alleviate debate. Thanks.

52.230-2 52.230-6

Bumping up an old topic.... I cannot find the 9 Nov 07 on "CAS may apply on a task order by task order basis." Perhaps it is too old to query. I have an FFP IDIQ supply contract. The contract contains five option years; all with negotiated/priced CLINS established prior to the basic contract award. Question: What portions of this contract are/ would be CAS covered? Would it be each delivery order, each option year (though exercise of an option year does not generate a delivery order), or the five year IDIQ contract in its entirety? I cant seem to find a clear answer anywhere and looking for some opinions. Thanks

Retread- great case. Thank you!

Agree with Leo. Is this really an audit or a proposal analysis? I am not aware that an auditor has regulatory authority to request data in a specified format; this is a power of the contracting officer. Perhaps a PCO dictated this format. Typically an audit would involve physical review of your books and records, and any data submissions are in the contractors format; at least in my experience.

Joel- The latter; we settled on the lower prices.

Sorry for the typo, yes 15.407-1(a). We agreed to the price on handshake day, subject to any TINA sweep updates (which again, I expected). In general, am I wrong to think final agreement on price never really occurs until TINA sweep, contractor certification, and Govt acceptance of any adjustments? In this case, they certified with no updates, but I am not sure if I agree as I know there were updates. Do you think I am not required to bring it to their attention at this time (post- certification)? - let me know if I need to rephrase the scenario as I seem to have added some confusion. Thank you.

Vern, While I dig into the case law you have so generously provided, you have answered my question. I must comply with FAR 15.407(a). This is the answer I was looking for. Ultimately, no defective pricing should be realized because the Government officials would not request a post-award (defective pricing) audit unless a price-reduction could be achieved. The occurrences here are just irresponsible of the contractor, in my opinion. It's my job to bring the matter to their attention. Thank you. JMG

Yes. The unit pricing of the hardware we are procuring would have increased, though it would have been minor. We walked through the BOM changes in person and discussed when the prices had changes. We just never received the data in a writing. The contractor shorted himself. Now, perhaps they went back out to their suppliers and demanded they honor the older pricing as initially proposed, thus no update would be required.

Scenario: -Settled on price on a hardware buy - Contractor conducted final TINA sweep - Contractor certified within a few days without providing any data or pricing updates. However, I am aware of updates (minor supplier cost increases) from a pre-sweep conducted by the contractor. The pre-sweep data was not submitted but was socialized in face to face negotiations. It was agreed that the handshake price would be updated upon final TINA sweep, but no data or updates were received Is this cert valid, or is there a defective pricing risk, even if disclosing the most current data would not be detrimental to the Govt? Thoughts, suggestions? Thanks.