airborne94

Performance will continue, there are FY04 funds which expire on 30 Sep 2009.

What is the proper FAR authority to support the deobligation of unexpended obligated funds that are about to expire? I see a mod from last year and it has the changes clause FAR 52.243-1 and I disagree with that authority. I was leaning toward FAR 43.103(a).

Please see the text below: I found this in the WIFCON archives and this is part of a response provided by Vern Edwards. I don't think you are required to fully fund a FFP/FUP clin, since it is treated like a cost or T&M clin. Not 100% sure, this is why I am asking for help. Firm-fixed-unit-price contracts are used when it is difficult or impossible to predict the amount of work that the contractor will have to do. They are an alternative to cost-reimbursement contracts and are similar to a labor hour pricing arrangement except that payments are based on units of output (e.g. cubic yards of excavation), rather than units of input (e.g., labor hours). These kinds of contracts are very standard in both government and the private construction sector. A firm-fixed-unit-price contract does not compensate the contractor on the basis of its "cost experience." The contractor's cost experience is not relevant to the payment determination. It compensates the contractor for its production. Eric, a firm-fixed-unit-price contract does provide an incentive to control costs. I have seen construction supervisors raise all kinds of hell with equipment operators for inefficient production. (I'll bet Joel has, too.) The company is getting paid per unit of production, not per hour, and heavy equipment rental is expensive. The contractor cannot control how many units he has to produce, but he can and must control how much input he uses to produce those units, or he'll go broke. However, firm-fixed-unit-price contracts are administratively more burdensome than lump sum contracts.

A level of production by skilled labor. I am new to FFP/FUP, but have been told that this pricing approach is treated like a cost or T&M clin (which don't require full funding at time of award). In the past I have always fully funded FFP clins, which is requied, but I am not familiar with the FUP element. Thanks

Are you required to fully fund at time of award, FFP/Fixed unit price contract line items?

Don, When I try discussing the more strealined approach I just get shot down. It is nice to know that I am not really looking into a black hole... that this really can be much more of a simpler process. Thanks for sharing your comment.

That would be a local clause. Is that correct? Probably found in section H.

Thanks for that detailed response from Former Fed. This website is truly priceless to us out in the field and I am always shocked when I learn that other 1102's are not aware of this website.

It is in regards to issuing a task order under a T&M umbrella IDIQ.

Can you use Best Value Trade-off evaluation procedures when competing IDIQ task orders? The reason I ask is that FAR 16 tells us that the policies in Subpart 15.3 do not apply to the ordering process. I am working in a new office and it seems that FAR Part 15 procedures are being used in full force rather than reaping the benefits FAR Part 16 allows.

Can someone please direct me to the proper FAR sec/sub section which addresses the type of proposal (cost/price) analysis necessary for a T&M. FAR Part 16 informs the reader to use FAR 15.4 when dealing with Part 16 ordering procedures (which 15.4 discusses everything from price analysis to cost realism analysis) BUT the FAR is silent on which analysis is required when it comes to T&M.