FAR Fetched

What are the terms of the Incentive Fee?

.

If the Contractor controls the time spent on the project from start to finish, an Incentive Fee works great. Think of a contract to build a road through a grass field a mile long; if the contractor finishes early, they'll get the incentive fee, if they're late they'll just incur unbillable cost (or even a penalty). The Contractor controls and is responsible for obtaining and managing labor/materials and there's only one sign-off at the end of the project; either the road is done early, on time or late. It's very easy to quantify an incentive fee in that scenario. The problem with the work you're describing is (I'm guessing) the Contractor doesn't control the time spent working from start to finish. Questions about trying to do this with an Incentive Fee: Will the Contractor have full access to the equipment and vehicles at all times or will they require to Government access it? What happens when the Contractor shows on time and the equipment and/or vehicles aren't ready for servicing? Is the equipment homogeneous? It sounds like a very small contract that could turn into a lot of micro-managing de minimis costs and a constant documentation required on the part of both Gov and Contractor to figure out what time should/shouldn't be applied to their potential profits.

I'm not sure what you're trying to gain; you're the Prime Contractor, the CO has funding and wants to extend the Contract. What's the problem?

The short answer with the information I have is Yes, the Prime/Sub Task Order can have two or more periods of performance within the same Task Order. The long answer is how your accountants booked the funding last year and if that funding was tied to Option Years your contract. I don't think your Prime is doing anything 'wrong', it's just sloppy Subcontracting management in my opinion. If I issued a Task Order for Oct 1 to Sep 30 for 100k and the sub only used 40k. I wouldn't just extend the POP or at a new one, I'd issue a modification to the Task Order deobligating the unused 60k, close out that Task Order and issue a new Task Order for 60k. Or if it's a Base + Options type of agreement, I would have deobligated the unused funding and exercised the Option with the 60k.

I'm my exp, this is the bottom line answer. If the CO wants it, you give it to them - you can be 'dead right' in this situation by pushing back and saying you don't have to per xyz clause but you can forget about an award as they'll think you're hiding something (like excessive profit). I've seen few times where a CO is pleased by a Contractor educating them on their on solicitation.

Did the Prime refuse to make the new POP start Nov 1st? Did you receive an NTP or letter of intent etc. to keep you working past Oct 30th? Has this happened before (last option years)? What type of Task Order is it (FFP, T&M etc.)? Also, I hope you're not confusing the 'effective date' with the 'POP' - or maybe your Prime is.

When I was on the Gov side, I was not aware of any regulation restricting use of a purchase card as a fleet card other than the organization's restrictions. The delineation was mostly because of reporting/management/cost tracking purposes. In my old agency, fleet cards typically had many small/frequent purchases for vehicle/travel associated costs while purchase cards are typically only used when invoicing is not an option to purchase government property. I guess if someone with that?s been issued both cards used the purchase card as a fleet card, it would be merely a violation of policy ? not a law (that I know of). I think this is a question of agency or line of business's policy - not one of regulation (again, that I know of).

H2H I agree that contractors bid FP on risky things all the time but the risk is typically on the Contractor's ability to perform, not that the Gov will "require OT at an unspecified amount". Even with a sample of past OT use in the RFP, it doesn't help if there are no parameters on the OT (e.g. only on Holidays). Example: If Contractor A builds in a reasonable amount of OT Cost in a all-inclusive (planned time and potential OT) proposal and Contractor B decides to go much lower and only focus on bidding the planned time and decides to take a "risk" that there will be little or no overtime. Let's say Contractor B wins - Would you have no problem during performance requiring overtime even though you awarded the contractor that showed little to no OT costs in their bid? Is it, "Shame on the Contractor for bidding so low?" I know it's hypothetical on top of hypothetical but my point is why wouldn't you want to clearly separate the known from the unknown requirement? When I see RFPs that can't spell out the unknown from the known, I no-bid them and let someone else provide potential pro-bono work.

Example of where I think the FFP CLIN/OT CLIN would apply: Requirement to provide Security Personnel at Gov site: FFP CLIN - Contractor must provide X-amount of security personnel Mon-Fri 8am-5pm. I could easy price up a FFP Proposal for this coverage. FFP OT CLIN - For events as directed by Gov on site after the hours herein, Contractor will charge the OT CLIN at a proposed rate. This case I'd propos a Price for the entire Year + options and an OT CLIN rate.

Without seeing the RFP, knowing the type of work and making the decision based solely on the premise, yes. I would like to see specific language that would authorize charging to the OT CLIN in addition to pre-COTR approval though ? e.g. authority may be delegated to on-site Gov personnel, approval for OT may be granted at the discretion of the Gov after the OT service is performed or something that would not put me in the position of walking off site when there's obviously a need to provide the services OT. Again, I'm not sure if the last part is necessary if all OT is known well in advance. I'd also need to know what "Overtime" is: 40 hours a week?, Holidays? Total hours for the year? etc.

H2H In this scenario, would there be a NTE Hours/Value amount of Overtime? As a contractor, I would be hesitant to bid without one.

This is a very bad idea.

ETA- I'm assuming you're the Prime Contractor in my responses (and not the CO). Sure, it's a Change Order or Requet for Change. BTW, Who identified the need for change in scope? Customer, Prime or Sub? Typically, I work with the sub to agree on a price reduction if a piece of work is being de-scoped or simply ask for a quote for the additional work if adding scope I can't remember a larger FFP job (say +250k, POP> 3 months) that I've NEVER had to adjust If the Prime contract is FFP, I'd insist on the Subs performing FFP whenever possible. I don't understand this last part.

Right now reading The Time-and-Materials Contract: the Time has come for a long, hard look - Vernon J. Edwards I've never heard of the guy, but it's a pretty good read.

A couple reasons: He didn't finish the job, the cost is higher.

No worries, end of fiscal year does it to us all.

A contractor employee has to come home early while on travel (under contract) due to a death in the family. The government customer wants to pay to bring the employee back home but is unsure if they're allowed to. My contract doesn't speak directly to the issue and I haven't found anything yet in the mountain of flowdown clauses that would allow the government to pick up the cost. Meanwhile we of course are bringing the employee home while we work out the details. This is a Services, IDIQ contract. Work is being done T&M if that matters.

Good stuff so far

I think the frequency of the purchases in a year is important. There are hundred of thousands of laptops purchased each year so going back more than a year may not be necessary while the amount of ships purchased in a year may be so few (or none) that going back 10 even 20 years may be necessary.

I agree with the first part, CO and CORs should be subject to a credit check. I don?t agree, however, with the second part of establishing a ?minimum credit score requirement?. The credit check should be tool as part of an overall investigation. Having a minimum score doesn?t differentiate between someone that has always had a history of poor decision making and one who has recently gone through say a divorce and lost their home etc. I think the information should be reviewed as a whole and any ?red flags? should be investigated. Simply relying on a number at one point in time doesn't tell the story of someone?s character.

Are the materials speced out by the Government (e.g. must use Alarm brand XYZ type 123)?

Hotel site How else would you match up the receipts to the per diem? I ran into this when working around Atlanta, the rate for the county I worked in was higher but used the per diem rate for the hotel. Although the few extra bucks a day for meals would be nice, but I'd have no way of explaining why I paid the hotel the set per diem rate of $70 but received $130 at the ATL rate (It's been a few years, sure it's changed). And I've never seen a situation where I received one rate for hotel and another for meals (not saying it's wrong, just never seen it).

Where do you stand?