Tomahawk

7 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Tomahawk,

I recommend you ask the contracting officer for clarification on which parts of the work are FFP and which parts of the work are T&M. Hopefully, the answer will be on a CLIN basis, where certain CLINs are wholly FFP and other CLINs are wholly T&M -- that is generally easier than having blended CLINs.  

A prospective offeror never has much time before proposals are due, so I suggest you hurry.

The CLIN clearly states FFP.

Would (should not) not the CLIN structure clearly state it what a T&M contract and not a Firm-fixed price?

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

You should get rid of that expectation.  A business owner can read the FAR as well as a contracting officer, or can hire the expertise to effectively participate in the government market.  I think "trust but verify" can apply here.

Yes, contracting officers will sometimes release solicitations with poorly-written CLIN schedules and so forth.  In those situations, I hope prospective offerors will share recommendations for improving the approach.  If they do, the resulting contract might be better for both parties.  Where prospective offerors don't share recommendations, or the contracting officer doesn't accept them, prospective offerors have to make a business decision:  continue to play or walk away.  

But this is true for all business arrangements everywhere, not just those with the government.  In the commercial market, it is very common for buyers to walk in and explain what they're looking for, and for sellers to advise them that they (the buyers) really don't want that.  Maybe the sellers are effective in changing the minds of the buyers, or maybe not.  

I tend to think sellers (or prospective Government contractors) should be experts in offering and packaging their services, and specifying payment terms -- and that is what a CLIN structure is, after all -- so yes, I think prospective contractors can be helpful to contracting officers in crafting CLIN structures that fit their market sectors.  

Oh, I long ago got rid of that expectation.

Hiring the expertise is the preferred method as "learning it yourself" is trap many SB's fall into. Do what you do well; hire the rest out.  I am seeing it is quite difficult to hire an expert, at least in this case.

You can't really compare the commercial word, where the seller gets to meet with the buyer to a situation where the CO on the government side is disconnected from not only the prospective vendor, but from their own end-user customer.  Back in the day when contracting activities were less centralized your approach worked well, but now that situation has changed.  I bolded your last comment because I couldn't agree more,  but that is just much more difficult now.

My opinion was that it was poorly designed.   Hence, why I came to the forum looking for expert help.

The expectation is that the CO knows the rules better than we do, as that is their job day in and day out.  That said, as business owners entering into a contract, we should do our due diligence beforehand to know what we agreeing to do. 

This is an excellent topic.

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What do you mean by "PM"?

I meant "private message".   

9 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

 

Haven't you just answered your own question?

I believe this will be acceptable.  

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Tomahawk:

Please tell us the RFP number so we can look at it on FedBizOpps.

Would a PM be acceptable?

1 hour ago, here_2_help said:

Yeah, I'm frequently told I'm psychic. Or is it psychotic? I get confused....

In any case, what's your concern? Are you concerned you cannot map your costs to the CLIN structure? Are you concerned about billing? What risks are you seeing?

You are asking about our views regarding your ability to account for contract costs, but how can we answer that if we don't know your company or its accounting system? How strong are your PMs? How granular is your Chart of Accounts? The point is, only you can answer the question because only you know your company.

The bold portion of your reply is my concern.  First, let's be candid: everyone on the planet avoids T&M because of  the huge accounting and tracking problems, both on the government and contractor side.  Secondly, in our 20 years, we have never had any T&M contract, especially where there really is no "T".   Billing is not an issue, but one risk I am seeing is to have to establish a different accounting structure for a bunch of cheap parts.

Looking through the provisions more carefully, I did see where the government will pay "established catalog prices" so my intention is to establish a catalog.  After all, these items aren't that numerous or expensive.

I have no interest in selling the government a bunch of cheap parts and would be much happier if they would source the parts themselves, but it is a requirement and we will fulfill the obligation.

By the way, thank you all for replying!

3 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

Tomahawk, why do you say you think the RFP has a T&M portion for materials?  Is the contractor required to manufacture the parts or just provide them?  I'm having a hard time understanding how a T&M pricing arrangement would work if the RFP merely calls for the contractor to provide the parts.  In other words, what would be the time portion of such an arrangement?

They want the contractor to repair the equipment and if parts (material) are needed to sell them to the government with no markup, only "cost".

I agree, I do not understand why the "time" is referenced as the "time" is already FFP.

5 hours ago, ji20874 said:

I recommend you ask the contracting officer for clarification on which parts of the work are FFP and which parts of the work are T&M. Hopefully, the answer will be on a CLIN basis, where certain CLINs are wholly FFP and other CLINs are wholly T&M -- that is generally easier than having blended CLINs.  

A prospective offeror never has much time before proposals are due, so I suggest you hurry.

I agree, time is of the essence.  I will be asking questions of the KO, but I think the individual is in well over his head.

I've been successfully responding to state and federal bids for 30 years, but this is a type of RFP I've not seen before.  

3 hours ago, here_2_help said:

I could see an FFP/LOE portion for (say) supporting engineering services and a T&M portion for purchase/install/maintenance/repair of parts.

That's pretty close to what it will be when it gets awarded.

And to clarify, the FFP is for the service.  They are requesting an FTE for services with 2080 hrs,FFP.

We received an RFP with a request for FFP labor rates for five years and ( I think) a time and material portion for materials ( parts) used in computer repair.

It is a bit hard to follow, but the government has budgeted a set $ amount for parts per year and the ability to request more dollars if required.

I have not seen a blended contract like this before.  It literally says on the solicitation:

Type of contract:

1. Firm-Fixed Price

2. Time and Material

It is SB set-aside, if that is relevant.

My question is:  How difficult will this be to manage from an accounting standpoint?