Jump to content

Hard2pick

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hard2pick

  1. Yea that just it, they cannot determine when or how many weeks they will need and we are stuck with FFP. We thought about making two CLINs 1 on a 3 day work week and 1 for the other 2 days but it i still dont see how to acurately do this without having a predetermined work week.

    So how are they planning on funding it if they do not determine the level of effort required to do the work. (T&M/LOE). How are they planning to do the Government Cost Estimate? How are they expecting a contractor to propose if they do not even know when, or for how long they need performance? Very interesting...

  2. I am working on an FFP 8a contract to buy services in the form of hours. The contractor will be required to work part time 3 days a week (24hrs) with the ability to work to work full time 5 days a (40hr). I am trying to figure out how to base my CLINS on this method so the contractor can get paid. I know a T&M would fit this type of contract but that would take an act of congress to get passed in my organization and the PO is dead set against it. Has anyone dealt with a similar type situation, if so how did you breakout your CLINS?

    How about two CLINS:

    001 - Three day week: XXX weeks @ $XXXX.XX per / week = FFP

    002 - Five day week: XXX weeks @ $XXXX.XX per / week = FFP

    If the program knows the qty of weeks that the offeror will have to work 3 days and / or 5 days, end of the problem but, if it cannot be determined the specific amount of weeks for each CLIN, you would be stuck with T&M.

  3. Here is a thought. More a question, really. What is the purpose of routine legal review? What is "legal sufficiency"? I have been in this business for almost 40 years, as a DOD CO and as a chief of a DOD contracting office, and I have never been entirely clear on the purpose of routine legal review or the meaning of legal sufficiency.

    I understand legal review of CO final decisions under the Disputes clause. No problem. I understand legal review of the source selection file in reaction to a bid protest. No problem there, either. But what is the purpose of routine legal review? Is it quality assurance? Is it, for instance, to ensure that the CO has adequately justified the decision to use a specific contract type or a determination of price reasonableness? If so, what qualifies an attorney to make such a review? What did they learn in law school that qualifies them?

    I can think of no better way to improve relations between attorneys and COs than for attorneys to explain and justify legal review. I know when and why I should consult an attorney on a specific legal issue. I just don't know why I must routinely submit my file to the legal office when I don't think I need their help. It's insulting. I run a business now. I make decisions every day. I have had the same attorney for 20 years, but I don't check with him about routine business matters. Why should COs submit routine transactions for legal review just because they exceed a certain dollar value?

    You say that attorneys are "assisting" COs and contract specialists. Really? Is that what they are doing in routine review? Assisting how? Are they assisting or checking up on them? If the latter, then don't expect COs to be happy about it.

    Score a grand slam on this one Mr. Vern...or a "LIKE" on facebook. In the past, I have seen some of the most ridiculous comments on contracts and related documentation, when they return from the so called "legal reviews". We used to call them "grammar checks"!

  4. If by "funded" you mean "obligated", then the article was incorrect. Typically, an award-fee contract provides for payment of award fee after some, or all, of contract performance has taken place and the Government has subjectively evaluated the contractor's performance. Until that time, the award-fee is a contingent liability. Contingent liabilities are not obligations and may not be recorded as such. For more on contingent liabilities, see pp. 7-55 and 7-56 of the GAO Redbook.

    In the case of an award-term contract, the Government has a contingent liability for the award term upon award. The liability does not arise unless and until the Government has determined the contractor's entitlement in accordance with the award-term provisions of the contract. As such, an obligation may not be recorded for unearned award-terms when the initial award-term contract is awarded.

    Award Fee = Additional monetary rewarded for performance based on contract terms and conditions

    Award Term = Additional period or term rewarded for performance based on contract terms and conditions

    Like Mr. Hoffman says, they are both contractor's entitlements, as opposed to "options".

  5. Is DOD allowed to fund contractor training with appropirated funds as required by the contract for them to stay up to date with changes to commercial software used in the contract?

    I researched FAR Part 31, and both appendences for allowable costs, but I was not able to get a definite answer. The broad answer was if it's required by the contract we can fund the training.

    I humbly submit that the part in bold may be a point that has been missed. Is it "required by the contract" that DOD fund it or is it required by the contract that they stay up to date? What does the ODC's section in the terms and conditions of the contract say?

  6. I have never worked on a contract type with an "award term," where, like an award fee, if the KTR performs well, the agency can award the KTR an "award term" which is like tacking on extra time to the period of performance, say, an extra year added to the base period.

    My question is, how should such an award term be funded? Must the agency fully fund the award term at the time of original award? What if the base period is say, two years, so the award term won't be "exercised" (I know the award term is not an option, but I don't know what other word to use) until the end of second year of the base period -- does the agency have to fund the award term with the original year and type of funds from the time of the original award, or can it use the current year's annual appropriations?

    I read an article years ago that said "award fees" had to be fully funded at the time of original award, and even if it took years until they were "due" depending on the performance of the KTR, the agency always had to pay out of the original type and year of money. So I am thinking award terms is probably treated the same, right?

    Award Term is an additional term (usually a year) that is added or given to the contractor as a performance reward. This action, which is not an option, is an entitlement that the contractor receives, as stipulated in the contract as an added term of performance for obtaining or meeting a "specific" performance rating or target in the overal requirements of the contract. It is (or has been) widely used in the Dept of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Management and Operations Contracts with either for profit contractors and / or Federally Funded Research and Development Centers to run its Nuclear Weapons production, storage, research or development efforts.

    Short answer, it is funded when the obligation is required upon contract award extension.

  7. I work for a large gov?t agency on a level I acquisition program as the gov't EVM lead. We have a $1B contract with a prime. Under one large task order with many CLINs and many Control Accounts (CAs), we have several CAs that have under-run their budget. This is a LOE on a CPFF contract. The PM would like to have the contractor continue performing LOE work until the funds are exhausted. The CO has issued a contract mod to extend the PoP and allow the contractor to continue working - but will not add ceiling. My contractor EVM team is telling me that in order to plan the additional work, they need additional budget (ie, ceiling) against which to plan the additional work. Note the distinction - they don't need funding - they need ceiling.

    As an example, say we are funded for, and plan $1M worth of LOE work over 12 months. As we set up our EV system, we budget $1M worth of work over 12 mos (BCWS) at a planned value of $1M (BCWP). At the end of 12 months, we've only spent $800k (ACWP = $800k). In EV terms, we have a cost variance of +200k - not a bad thing! We have measured costs against the $1M. Now, we want to spend an additional 200k. We have to plan that against an additional 200k, as we've already planned and measured against the original $1M. To do this, we need additional budget authority (again, ceiling) so that we will have planned $1.2M worth of work - which should come in at the funded amount of $1M. At the end, the BCWS = 1.2M, BCWP - 1.2M, and ACWP - 1M. Without the additional ceiling against which to plan the additional work, we will have a situation where we plan $0 work, schedule $0 work, but have $200k of cost - kind of tough to tell the taxpayer that we spent $200k on nothing.

    My CO tells me that the FAR doesn't allow him to add ceiling when funding is sufficient. I say that he is adding scope (additional time on LOE work is scope, isn't it?) I say his options are to 1) add ceiling, but manage the contractor not to exceed funded amount, OR 2) close out the CA, de-obligate the remaining funds, and issue a new task/CA/whatever you want to call it, for the additional work the PM would like to have performed.

    Am I wrong here? Certainly, I could be... but would welcome any comments that let me know where/how I'm wrong. I've looked for FAR clauses but can't find anything concrete. I know that EVMS guidelines (the 32 ANSI guidelines) definitely don't allow you to perform work that hasn't been properly planned. Thanks!!

    In EV terms, we have a cost variance of +200k - not a bad thing! Hmmmm! 20% CPI... And who managed that project?

×
×
  • Create New...