Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Not convincing arguments in my book in Vern's post #25. FAR 36.207 is for construction and now we can stretch to the whole of the FAR?

Also how do you handle a quantity over or under the estimated? That is why Subpart 11.7 is there to take away the contingency if you will for supplies and construction. No discussion of services by my read. So for a commercial item I might get there and be able to add a variation "clause" of some sort based on the tenants of tailoring but for a noncommercial item there is no way to handle the variation as the clauses per Subpart 11.7 can not be used there. What then is my question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl, I looked at the reference you cited and I could not see where that subpart stated you could not use the variation in quantity principles for non-commercial item services. Could you please provide the exact reference?

This reminds me of a similar argument that you cannot have an option for increased quantities of services per FAR Subpart 17.2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread may be another contrived academic debate between two members to see if anybody can actually define and distinguish different contract types within the wording of the FAR.

The first post:

Has anyone used a firm-fixed-unit-price contract [see FAR 36.207(a) and ( b )] to buy services, commercial or noncommercial?

Yes, I would say that someone has used a firm fixed unit-price contract to buy services for such things as grass mowing per cut per acre where the amount is variable.or per cutting (US Army Corps of Engineers Operations Divisions for their various sites and parks) ; for fertilizing turf per acre (same org.) ; for various, indeterminate numbers of routine maintenance tasks (samr org.); for high pressure water removal of runway rubber on a per syd basis (USAF going back to the 1970's when I was the Base Pavements and Airfield engineer). For feeding troops on a per meal basis on LOGCAP and other contracts.

I don't think that FAR 36.207 has anything to do with buying commercial or non-commercial services. It applies to pricing construction contracts where "the work" is a product of an undertaking.

If so, what do you consider to be:

(1) the essential difference(s) between the two types,

(2) the criteria for use of one versus the other, and

(3) the pros and cons of one versus the other?

What "two types" - "commercial" and "non-commercial"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convincing arguments in my book in Vern's post #25. FAR 36.207 is for construction and now we can stretch to the whole of the FAR?

Carl:

I like and respect you, but I don't care that you're not convinced. There is always someone like you ready to draw "can't do it" inferences from scant material in FAR, especially if they have no experience of their own. FFUP service contracts are long and well-established in federal acquisition practice. I awarded them when I worked for the Air Force and I wasn't the first, and those contracts were scrutinized and found to be in compliance with regulation and otherwise legally sufficient. There are a goodly number of BCA decisions involving FFUP service contracts going back many years. See e.g., Kee Service Company, ASBCA 28966, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19242, which concerned mess hall services:

The IFB schedule required bidders to quote daily unit prices for mess attendant services at each of the three dining facilities at Fort Rucker. Unit prices were to be quoted for workdays (WD) (workday with three meals); partial workdays (PWD) (workday with breakfast and noon meals only), and non-workdays (NWD) (week-ends) in buildings 4501 and 4508. For building 5914, unit prices were to be specified only for workdays (WD) and non-workdays.

And see Bannum, Inc., DOTCAB 4450, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33049:

The contract was to be a firm fixed unit price requirements contract with a base period from November 1, 1997, through October 31, 1999, plus three one-year options expiring on October 31, 2002.

​That contract was for the operation of a community correctional center, and the service unit was "inmate days."

See Electronic Data Systems, Inc., CBCA 1552, 10-1 BCA ¶ 34316, regarding IT services:

The offerors were to provide the required infrastructure and personnel to perform the CLIN 1 enrollments and CLIN 2 maintenance on the accounts using the unit prices they proposed. The solicitation required offerors to propose firm fixed unit prices for each CLIN in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Agencies write their own variation in quantity clauses for such contracts. Here's one from an Air Force contract for vehicle maintenance, as quoted by the board in TECOM, Inc., ASBCA 44122, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26483:

VARIATION IN WORKLOAD:

The estimated workloads contained in Technical Exhibit 2 of the Performance Work Statement are subject to variations. When the accumulated increases or decreases exceed 15% of the original total estimated workload specified in Technical Exhibits 2a through 2i, an equitable adjustment in the contract price shall be made upon demand of either party. The equitable adjustment shall be based solely upon that portion of the total net increase or decrease in excess of 15% of the original total estimated workload.

It appears that, in the immortal words of Bob Dylan, your experience with such contracts is "limited and underfed." That being the case, I'm not going to spend another minute on you, and neither should metteec, but he's on his own.

FFUP service contracts are permissible. They have always been permissible. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread may be another contrived academic debate between two members to see if anybody can actually define and distinguish different contract types within the wording of the FAR.

If it is, I assure you that I'm not one of the members. My questions are a product of genuine ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern - My respect is equal but I find the discussion interesting from this point of view. You, above all, like to question the GAO and even the FAR when you are trying to defend a converse view however should anyone else do it then all of the sudden the FAR and GAO are gospel. So in a question - What is it? GAO and the FAR are always right or always wrong, or it can depend?

First and foremost in two posts you defended using the approach based on quotes from the FAR that is specifically only applicable to construction. I guess that means doing so must be “permissible” everywhere?

As usual you have pulled your dismissive 6 shooter apparently because it is better than offering a good argument from the FAR that supports a clear statement that FFUP contracts are allowed. Might be a good effort to offer such to the FAR Council so it is clear!

Clearly in my day I did exactly what has been represented here for services but in a close read of the FAR I do wonder if I had done it out of ignorance (too!)?

Metteec – So I guess you read the reference as having “service” as a specific category that is broader than “for supplies or for services that involve the furnishing of supplies”. If so can you point me to where?

To All – I really hate to bring this into the discussion but what the heck. Mr. Edwards and Mr. Mansfield wanted to have an academic argument about clause use but now their conclusions are swept to the side. By example I did a FEDBIZOPPS search of FAR 52.211-18 Variation in Estimated Quantity, which as prescribed by the FAR states that the clause shall (only???) be in construction contracts, yet in the FBO search it is found in subsistence, hotels , delivery of crusher fines, reduction of vegetation, and one construction (thank goodness) solicitation. For the other than construction would love to see their documentation regarding tailoring! Further I guess if they can do it, it makes it “right”!

I too am now gone from this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern - And I quote " I am not going to spend another minute on you" and "I'm just done with you".....hmm like I asked what is it the FAR or just your confused way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern - And I quote " I am not going to spend another minute on you" and "I'm just done with you".....hmm like I asked what is it the FAR or just your confused way?

Carl:

I find your last post to be incoherent.

I find your position on the permissibility of using FFUP contracts for the acquisition of services to be professionally stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacques had added a similar topic. He/she missed the contest that ended this topic.

Let's not carry this contest into the next topic. If you must continue the contest, there is a private messaging service on this forum for such encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×