Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

ConMan1982

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ConMan1982

  • Rank
    New

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The more I think about it, I believe it's really just a bonafide need issue. If it's severable, we only have the year since we're crossing fiscal years.
  2. I'm working on a large dollar Advisory and Assistance Contract that is about to be transferred from DHS to USDA. Congressional approval was granted for DHS to transfer funds to USDA, These funds are FY18 two year funds which we anticipate receiving around August/September. I know we have until end of FY19 to get these funds obligated before they expire but what I'm trying to figure out is how long the funds remain useable. When using annual appropriations, bonafide need allows one year from date of obligation to use the funds (crossing fiscal years) unless we are purchasing a non-severable service. We believe the services would be severable so would we still be limited to one year from obligation to use the funds. Really wish I still hand my CON090 Time, purpose, color of money slides. I've been looking through the redbook but coming up short. In my career I've only ever used annual appropriations and no-year funds.
  3. Yes, that may be our best bet. I prefer to solve problems before they've become problems but doing so could just cause more problems (protest). Based on the first two years of performance, government hasn't utilized the full level of effort afforded in the options. The thought is that the work, as originally estimated, still needs to occur just not at the schedule they wrote the contract for. We may end up just having to issue a follow on if the need arises.
  4. Sorry, meant a T&M with fully burdened fixed labor rates.
  5. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I wish I could find a specific case that shows how GAO would rule on the matter. My opinion is that it would not have affected the availability of competition as it's the same work, it would just be re-organized how we structure and elect to exercise said work. The more I think about this the more my thought is to leave it be. If there isn't strong support that GAO would rule in favor of the COs decision to restructure it would likely be something that could trigger a protest. I'm not convinced the current structure is bad enough to be willing to introduce a protest risk.
  6. Starting over with a new competition or doing a new contract under sole source authority is not currently an option. Our original plan was that we would move forward with a sole source award for an IDIQ Time and Materials contract rather than transfer the original contract. Department has overridden us and is now instructing us to transfer the contract. Thank you for the reference CC, I actually went down this rabbit hole previously about changing contract type but determined that changing from a CPFF LOE to a FFP T&M would trigger CICA due to the accounting system requirements for a cost reimbursement contract. So I'm left with the stinker of a contract we will receive through transfer. Is there any case law or FAR reference that deals with restructuring options? I know adding options with additional work or that extend the contract POP would trigger CICA but does dividing up existing options into multiple meet in-scope change standards? My gut tells me since the changed work performs essentially the same function as the unchanged work, it would fall within scope. But maybe there's a rule that says if you add an option it's automatically outside of scope.
  7. My agency has been tasked with transferring a CPFF LOE Term contract from another department. The contract was set up with a base and 9 option periods each with a level of effort and ceiling for a one year period of performance. I have a question concerning whether a restructuring of the future unexercised option periods would be allowed under a bi lateral modification or if adding options would trigger CICA. The rationale for considering such a change is that doing so would allow us to only exercise the amount of effort needed as we add work packages to the contract. In a way, making the contract operate more like an IDIQ. Under the current structure if we exercise an option that contains 10,000 labor hours for year 3 (how effort is measured), and we only use 5,000 of those hours during that period, the unused 5,000 hours of effort dies with the expiration of the option period. This contract would have been better suited as an IDIQ with task orders rather than a base with options but since we are taking the contract as a transfer, we would be limited to changes we can make by modification. My real question is this: If we do not exceed the total hours and dollars of the contract, can we redistribute our options by modification? Instead of 9 options, could we divide those options into 20 options? Note that we would be adding options but not adding any additional work or increasing the cost ceiling. It would essentially allow us to shift work to the future if we aren't ready to issue the work packages. Government anticipated issuing work packages earlier than they have. The work would still occur within the contract period of performance but not the original option period of performance. If we don't extend the option period of performance, we stand to run out of hours we can use before the end of the contract.
×
×
  • Create New...