Modifications that Increase the Performance Envelope

[PMDave]

Let me start by stating the term modification will be used in a few different contexts in this posting, as follows:

Modification-As defined associated in Army Regulations, not the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as a repair type procedure "within the current performance envelope" and a modification that "increases the current performance envelope." Important because the distinction has implications with respect to the type of appropriations used for the modification.

Contract modification means any written change in the terms of a contract.

Modifications are considered as one of the elements under the umbrella of Contractor Logistics Support services; however, modifications, which increase the performance envelope, are generally not known in advance and generally require appropriations other than O&M. Thus, limiting the ability to provide data necessary to include in a solicitation for offerrors to propose on for a CLS requirement. My question is can you contemplate the type of work associated with the modifications, that increase the performance envelope, without having them proposed on as a part of the original contract award and use an ECP type process to negotiate a price for these increased capabilities? The train of thought is yes, because modifications are contemplated under a CLS services effort or no because it would be considered new work and a J&A would have to be completed for each and every increase in capability. The second thought process does not make sense to me because the current contractor is already performing a baseline of maintenance services on X aircraft, vehicle, whatever with the resources on staff. To write a J&A for each and every effort associated with increased capability does not make sense. Nor does competing each and every increase in capability and potentially having a different contractor performing the associated work. The only sensible approach is using an ECP like process, and the reason I say like process, is as I understand only used on systems that are in production, while MWO's are used for out of production systems. If none, of these paths are correct please advise.

[brian]

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Maybe if you rewrote this, and made it just a bit longer, I could follow what you are asking.

[joel hoffman]

Apparently you have a contract that is funded with operations and maintenance appropriations to maintain and repair systems on aircraft X vehicle, correct?

You also stating that certain physical modifications to the aircraft that don't increase the performance capability (envelope) are to be contemplated within the scope of the contract in the statement of work or somewhere else, correct?

In that event you apparently use an Engineering Change Proposal or ECP process that is covered under a configuration management process, correct?

You appear to be saying that modifications, which increase the performance envelope, are generally not known in advance and generally require appropriations other than O&M and are not delineated in the contract, correct?

You asked for confirmation or opinion whether or not such aircraft modifications can be added to the contract, using the ECP process, correct?

Does the contract statement of work or elsewhere indicate that possible services will include upgrade aircraft modifications that increase the performance envelope/capability?

[joel hoffman]

After thinking about it, it would seem that there is much more to the context of modifications to an aircraft's performance envelope that involve airworthiness issues, programmatic and organizational issues, etc. The DoD services have programs, policies and procedures and assigned responsible organizations for such upgrades. Is this a small fleet of aircraft?

[PMDave]

Joel,

You are correct with what you deciphered from the intial post, but disregard the term aircraft, because the PM, in which I work, specializes in systems within an aircraft. Let's just use the term system X. You are also correct that modifications that increase the performance envelope, generally require RDT&E appropriations for IOT&E and Procurement to buy the kits, while the standard O&S maintenance is done using O&M. The main point of the question is we have a system X, post production, which is important because modifications to a system after DD250 or acceptance (post production), according to the DoDFMR & AR 750-10, are to be done via Modification Work Order versus ECP pre- DD Form 250. The Federal Acquisition Regulation does not mention MWO only ECP. The question is what is the correct process contractually on a CLS contract, which contemplates modification work to incorporate a technology increment, block upgrade, etc that will increase the performance envelope. Is it considered having been contemplated in the original scope (although not proposed), negotiated with current contractor for said work and modified into the contract through the changes clause? Is it new work, J&A’d to be performed by current contractor and modified into the contract through the changes clause? Or is it new work requiring competition? All different philosophies considered at our acquisition center. In my opinion, either of the first two are reasonable.

[Don Mansfield]

1. Is the contract an IDIQ or requirements contract?

2. Does the contract require the contractor to perform "modifications"? If so, does the contract contain a line item for "modifications"?

3. Did the original solicitation advise offerors that the contractor would be required to perform "modifications"?

4. Are "modifications" considered repair?

[PMDave]

Don, The contract is being awarded as a task order under an ID/IQ contract.

The contract does require the contractor to perform modifications, but the particular modifications are not know at this point (solicitation phase). The modifications are a result of required upgrades, obsolescence, and or tech refresh.

The PWS does communicate the need to perform modifications.

I like to stick with terminology that has been codified, in this case, from the AR 750-10. A modification is any alteration, conversion, or modernization of an end item or component of an end item, which in any way changes or improves the original purpose or operational capacity in relation to effectiveness, efficiency,

reliability, or safety of that item. This includes, but is not limited to, conversions, field fixes, retrofits, remanufactures, redesigns, upgrades, extended service programs, engineering changes, software revisions, system enhancement programs, service life extension programs, system improvement programs, product improvement programs, preplanned product improvements, modifications developed and applied by contractors as part of a prime vendor support (PVS) or

contractor logistics support (CLS). Which is included in the PWS along with repair terminology.

[PMDave]

Don, something happened when I pasted previous reply. Hope this one is better.

Don, The contract is being awarded as a task order under an ID/IQ contract.

The contract does require the contractor to perform modifications, but the particular modifications are not know at this point (solicitation phase). The modifications are a result of required upgrades, obsolescence, and or tech refresh.

The PWS does communicate the need to perform modifications.

I like to stick with terminology that has been codified, in this case, from the AR 750-10. A modification is any alteration, conversion, or modernization of an end item or component of an end item, which in any way changes or improves the original purpose or operational capacity in relation to effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, or safety of that item. This includes, but is not limited to, conversions, field fixes, retrofits, remanufactures, redesigns, upgrades, extended service programs, engineering changes, software revisions, system enhancement programs, service life extension programs, system improvement programs, product improvement programs, preplanned product improvements, modifications developed and applied by contractors as part of a prime vendor support (PVS) or contractor logistics support (CLS). Which is included in the PWS along with repair terminology.

[Don Mansfield]

PMDave,

Take a look at Engineering & Professional Services, Inc., B-289331, January 28, 2002. If this is analogous to your situation, then I think the ECP process you envision would be ok.