Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. GAO decision B-308969, Interagency Agreements--Obligation of Funds under an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contract, May 31, 2007 indicates that it is the responsibility of the agency to immediately issue an obligation order off an IDIQ contract meeting the amount of the required minimum purchase. My agency is often competing and awarding IDIQ contracts in the FY prior to the anticipated and advertised POP. Therefore award is often in May -August for POP start date October 1 aligning with the Fiscal Year. In this case is it really appropriate to issue a minimum order at the point of award. In actuality the appropriate FY funding doesn't even exist yet.
  2. Yes, the contract as a whole verses the traits of the CLINS issue is exactly where my office is running into interpretation confusion. I think I poorly phrased my original question, but the contracts we are managing all the same excepting the place of performance. There are not some FFP, some LH, some TM contracts etc. We have a single combination type (FAR 16.102(b)) contract structure set up with FFP LH CLINS (labor and OT) subject to economic price adjustment, the actual hours are the IQ, and some FFP materials CLINS not subject to price adjustment. This structure is then replicated for each region, but for purposes of the question it could be assumed this was a single contract. So then for a combination type contract which includes FFP... How do we determine which "contract type" is the ultimate descriptor? Can we select the "contract type" as FFP to interpret CAS for the whole? Are the CLINS differently defined as LH or TM if the rates are ultimately FFP and it is the quantities that are IDIQ? Thanks for all the engagement on this question, I am learning a lot.
  3. I see how my use of "support" was misleading, I meant to convey I am the contract specialist not the contracting officer, but I am writing this from the Government perspective. The program has a national footprint, so we have several regional contracts executing the same government program for national coverage. The string of descriptors is applicable to all of the contracts individually. Each contract has FFP contract line items, some being for labor hours others being for materials, and the FFP labor hours are subject to economic price adjustments. Then among program's contracts the only thing that differs among them are the physical locations of the places of performance, all other aspects of the contracts are designed the same (SOW, clauses, deliverables schedule, etc.). We have not noted FAR 52.230-1 in Section K for the offerors to / not to certify since, up to this point, the contracting officers have been working off the assumption that it does not apply.
  4. To clarify my government office does not require offerors to submit certified cost or pricing data with the proposals. Thus far we have used FAR 15.401-1(b)(1) exceptions to certified cost or pricing data requirements; (1) when the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition. The circumstances of this program's competition meet the standards of adequate price competition defined in 15.403-1(c)(1) two or more responsible offerors, award made to the best value proposal, where price is a substantial factor in source selection, the determination that the proposed price is based on adequate price competition and is reasonable has been approved at a level above the contracting officer and price analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices. The program is national, so we re-compete several regions yearly. For the past five years we have never had fewer than 7 responsible offerors provide proposals. The best value determination uses technical, past performance, and price factors. With the FFP contract line item type and and adequate price competition, are these two circumstances alone sufficient to justify CAS exemption? Are the contracts still subject to CAS unless some additional exemption circumstance was applicable?
  5. I support a program with contracts defined as firm-fixed price (FFP), labor hour (LH), time and material (TM), indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) with economic price adjustments from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)/ wage determinations (WDs). The contracts were awarded under FAR 15 with adequate price competition. Due to some security aspects in the SOW the effort is considered non-commercial and agency described as design/detail. Historically, the program has considered these contracts exempt from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) per the exempted category (15) below, as there was always adequate price competition and they have not collected cost or pricing data with the offers. Is this interpretation correct? (b) The following categories of contracts and subcontracts are exempt from all CAS requirements: (1) Sealed bid contracts (2) Negotiated contracts and subcontracts not in excess of $500,000. For purposes of this paragraph (b)2 an order issued by one segment to another segment shall be treated as a subcontract (3) Contracts and subcontracts with small businesses. (4) Contracts and subcontracts with foreign governments or their agents or instrumentalities or, insofar as the requirements of CAS other than 9904.401 and 9904.402 are concerned, any contract or subcontract awarded to a foreign concern. (5) Contracts and subcontracts in which the price is set by law or regulation. (6) Firm fixed priced and fixed price with economic price adjustment (provided that the price adjustment is not based on actual costs incurred) contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (7) Contracts or subcontracts of less than $7.5 million, provided that, at the time of award, the business unit of the contractor or subcontractor is not currently performing any CAS-covered contracts of subcontracts valued at $7.5 million or greater. (8-11) [Reserved] (12) Contracts and subcontracts awarded to the United Kingdom contractor for performance substantially in the United Kingdom, provided that the contractor has filed with the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, for retention by the Ministry, a completed Disclosure Statement (Form No. CASB-DS-1) which shall adequately describe its cost accounting practices. Whenever that contractor is already required to follow U.K. Government Accounting Conventions, the disclosed practices shall be in accord with the requirements of those conventions. (See 9903.201-4(d).) (13) Subcontractors under the NATO PHM Ship program to be performed outside the United States by a foreign concern. (14) Contracts and subcontracts to be executed and performed entirely outside the United States, its territories, and possessions (15) Firm fixed price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data.
  • Create New...