baierle Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 I have never heard this position concerning the structure of a contract before and I am hopeful that someone at this forum can help me with some support or guidance to contradict this or overcome this so I can get my requirement met: I am told that I cannot structure a CLIN as T&M (even if I get my D&F approved) as an Option item on my contract because "The Option rules are in FAR part 17. The T & M rules are in FAR part 16. The term ?ceiling price? is found in FAR 16.601(d)(2). The term is not found in FAR part 17.207." anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woops85 Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Wow - I guess we have all been doing things wrong for years under that reasoning. And here I thought FAR 17.200 covered what it says in the Scope 17.200 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the use of option solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Except as provided in agency regulations, this subpart does not apply to contracts for ( a ) services involving the construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property; ( b ) architect-engineer services; and ( c ) research and development services. However, it does not preclude the use of options in those contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baierle Posted July 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Thanks for the reply; you are correct. I wished I would use this in my supportive argument, but my issue is trying to support the use of a Time and Material line item that I intended to use as an option item. The quantity is unknown. IQ may be more appropriate and we are researching this. ???However, since when was "Options" and T&M type mutually-exclusive and not to be used? Does the word "option" have to be found in the FAR section providing for T&M?? I am baffled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Thanks for the reply; you are correct. I wished I would use this in my supportive argument, but my issue is trying to support the use of a Time and Material line item that I intended to use as an option item. The quantity is unknown. IQ may be more appropriate and we are researching this. ???However, since when was "Options" and T&M type mutually-exclusive and not to be used? Does the word "option" have to be found in the FAR section providing for T&M?? I am baffled. What is the position (job title) of the person stating this proposition and what is your positon in relation to his/her's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Contract type (pricing arrangement) has no bearing on the use of options. It is perfectly permissible to have a T&M option CLIN. Not only is it permissible, it is common. Whoever told you that you cannot have a T&M option CLIN is wrong, unless they are referring to some local rule. Nothing in FAR prevents it. Tell them to back up their position by citing the applicable FAR section. Tell them to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baierle Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 you won't believe this (well, Vern may)-- it was our legal counsel specifically citing the fact that no where is option cited in 16.601 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baierle Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 this was the response from legal counsel: "The Option rules are in FAR part 17. The T & M rules are in FAR part 16. The term ?ceiling price? is found in FAR 16.601(d)(2). The term is not found in FAR part 17.207." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 If that's the extent of his reasoning, then he is an idiot. You can quote me. In fact, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 this was the response from legal counsel:"The Option rules are in FAR part 17. The T & M rules are in FAR part 16. The term ?ceiling price? is found in FAR 16.601(d)(2). The term is not found in FAR part 17.207." So what is the conclusion that (s)he draws from these facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baierle Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I need to tread lightly because I will be working here until I get RIF'd (or whatever happens) and I need counsel to approve certain things as part of the process here. I want to tell him that he is mistaken, but I am not sure how to form my argument; I am sure to ruffle feathers somewhat. This is just an example of how legal strangles us here and our procurements take much longer than necessary because of poor guidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baierle Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Retread-- what this tells me is: despite years of experience and education, and excellent intuition and business judgement, bad contracting continues (in part) because of agency processes in place. In this case, I require determination of legal sufficiency before I can proceed. Fair enough--but I am being given bogus reasons for rejection. Often times, solicitors appear to want to be quasi contracting officers. At this agency, contracting officer cannot make a determination that legal is wrong (idiotic!!) and proceed.... I have a plan B (as a good professional should), but this type of poor guidance is not good for milestones and client satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I need to tread lightly because I will be working here until I get RIF'd (or whatever happens) and I need counsel to approve certain things as part of the process here. I want to tell him that he is mistaken, but I am not sure how to form my argument; I am sure to ruffle feathers somewhat. This is just an example of how legal strangles us here and our procurements take much longer than necessary because of poor guidance. Advise him to check the FAR Matrix for the option clauses against the Time and Materials contract type. If he can't understand that , he wont understand rationale such as, 1. Part 17 "...prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services through special contracting methods..."including options. 2. Part 16 describes various contract pricing types. If options aren't mentioned in Part 16, when can they be used with any of those contract types? 3. The answer is found at 17.202 -- Use of Options" (a) Subject to the limitations of paragraphs ( and ? of this section, for both sealed bidding and contracting by negotiation, the contracting officer may include options in contracts when it is in the Government’s interest. 4. The answer is also found in the Far Matrix. 5. Options aren't exclusive to any particular contract pricing method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Good repsonese Joel. If that doesn't convince baierle's counsel, nothing esle will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts