Thank you for the replies. So I am working with a Government customer who believes that any additional work that is determined to be within the overall scope of the effort is not fee bearing and I'm looking to see if there is any specific reference I can point to that would help defend my case that in many times we should be allowed additional fixed fee in accordance with the contract or task order. When I talk about "additional work" I'm referring to an additional study or just additional resources that have already been covered in the scope. For instance if we have 2 people working on an effort and the customer has more work that originally anticipated and now we need 2 additional staff to support the work this doubles our original anticipated cost, but the scope remains unchanged. The other side of this is to try and address this during the proposal process where we make assumptions but many times it's hard to assume all scenarios, that's why we are in a cost environment in the first place.
Working in a CPFF environment where we have a PWS that is sometimes a little broad. If there is additional work that is requested, not originally planned, but determined to be "in scope," I'm looking for some basis to determine if the additional work should/could be Fee bearing? One party believes since we are in a cost environment additional cost can be requested for the additional work, but as it is in scope, it should not be subject to fee. Other party believes the opposite that just because it's in scope, does not automatically preclude the additional costs from being subject to additional fee. Thoughts? Thanks!