jpmackie

With a push to award more FFP contracts (versus T&M/LH/Cost types), what suggestions does anyone have to allocate the risks between the Gov. and the contractor? We all have situations where the contractor (heck, even the customer) scream for T&M and cite risk as their justification. For example, I currently administer an IDIQ (single award) for training services. It is 100% T&M/LH. To allocate risk to both parties, I could have done FFP on the training portion and T&M for the travel. A hybrid would work in this situation. Can we award a FFP and mitigate risk in areas other than contract type? I am searching for answers, but am coming up with very little. Most recent published work cite things like "study best practices" or "review internal policies" and give no definitive plans of action. This post relates to service and R&D efforts. Here are some ideas I came up with: Pricing databases for historical data (I have not seen one yet). More use of reverse auctions (might be very hard for services). More liberal use of IDIQ MACs. I am hoping that the experience and knowledge here can give me a kick in the right direction. I understand that no one answer will fit every situation. Thanks in advance.

Vern - Thank you for your response and the references. I plan on reading some of it tonight. Joel - Thank you as well. As you surmised, there are other considerations that I intentionally did not bring up. Both of your responses are helpful. While I do not believe that firms who are not performing well deserve to have their option exercised, I wanted to make sure there was nothing in the regulatory MAC arena that would guide the decision. The costs aside, it is an administrative burden on my office as well as the customers to juggle more contracts than necessary. Those points I agree with and have already considered. Again, thank you.

I have a quick question that I can't seem to find the answer to in my research. Here is the situation (changed slightly to make it generic enough). Supposed you have a multiple award IDIQ strategy with a base period plus one option to extend the ordering period. 8 proposals are received, 6 of those offerors receive awards. Among the 6 awards, delivery orders are competed throughout the base period. Some awardees are great suppliers, some only receive their guaranteed minimum (possibly due to price or other factors, not necessarily because they are problematic). How do you determine which awardee gets their option exercised? Is it legal to pick and choose based on past performance? Obviously the good suppliers would get their option exercised and the bad ones would not. I realize "good" and "bad" are subjective terms which is why I am asking this question. In fact, keep in mind that all 6 awardees were found to be competent and worthy of the initial award, hence capable of producing the items on contract. Also, assume there was no language in the RFP or resulting contracts that specified how or why the options would/would not be exercised. I am hoping there is some regulation that can guide me, but I am at a loss. At times like this, it makes me wish I had 15 more years experience and better ability to read case law, but I turn to the great minds here. I don't post often, but this site has helped me immensely in the past. Keep up the great discussions. Thank you in advance.