Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'UCA'.
Found 2 results
I'm a little confused on UCA timelines, and was hoping someone could help set me straight. Background: FAR 16.603-2 (c) states in regard to Letter Contracts, "The schedule will provide for definitization of the contract within 180 days after the date of the letter contract..." DFARS 217.7404-3 (a) "UCAs shall contain definitization schedules that provide for definitization by the earlier of— (1) The date that is 180 days after the contractor submits a qualifying proposal...." Questions: 1. I'm assuming the DFARS "further restricts" (although I'm not sure how that's further restricting) the FAR language by making the 180 days from qualifying proposal rather than the date of award of the letter contract. Is that how you read it? Am I missing something? 2. Are there any regulations (from DoD perspective) that pertain to the amount of time from award of a UCA to receipt of qualifying proposal? Edit: The DFARS used to be more clear on this issue: This is from the DFARS 217.7404-3 (June 29, 2018): (a) UCAs shall contain definitization schedules that provide for definitization by the earlier of— (1) The date that is 180 days after issuance of the action (this date may be extended but may not exceed the date that is 180 days after the contractor submits a qualifying proposal)
We have an 8(a) company who for the last two years, received an unfavorable CPARs rating. The requirer wants to modify the current contract (which is a CPFF, runs out Dec 2015) by extending the period of performance for another 30 months and giving contractor approximately $6M (due to the funds expiring 30 Sep). We have explained (to no avail) that if we try to use the adverse info in a future past performance evaluation, the contractor can point out that the performance problems must not have been that bad, since the Government turned right around and extended the contract for a considerable amount of time. They could also argue against any use of those ratings in ANY meaningful way. They could also argue that they did have performance problems but they fixed them (which they have not!), as evidenced by the Government's show of confidence in the contractor by way of a sizable contract extension. Our proposed course of action is to let the current contract expire in Dec 2015, and initiate a new contractual effort with another contractor to complete what wasn't accomplished on the existing contract. However, that doesn't solve the issue of losing $6M in funding. Another course of action that has been suggested is to do a UCA with another contractor to complete what wasn't accomplished on the existing contract (thereby freezing the $6M funds) and award sometime after the existing contract ends. Needless to say, this is much more complicated than I have written down but I tried to keep it simple. I am looking for any suggestions that might get us both (requirer and contracting) what we need.