Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't have a lot of experience with PWS, but I received a draft SOW with two CLINs, one is a standard CPFF-completion type and the other is for PWS which will also be CPFF.  First of all, is there an issue with this format?  

My other question is a bit more general and that is what would make something performance based on a CPFF type award?  Tying deliverables to the fixed fee so that if they don't meet the deliverable or to a lesser degree (ie, if trying to provide vaccines to a certain % of the population, tying different fee amounts to different % levels) they get reduced fee?  I know that PWS is required to have identified standards, but I guess the point I'm trying to get to is where is the 'so what' if they don't meet the standards?  I know it then becomes possible to terminate, but that is not likely or desirable if for example they only miss one or two performance standards out of 40 or 50.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea about the first paragraph as we would need more information. 

If they have 40 or 50 work standards I would say they have too many.  So many measures dilutes the importance of each.  As you stated they become a " so what".  They could prioritize them I suppose. 

If this is a real procurement, I would not reveal too much on this website. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
17 hours ago, DCChris23 said:

My other question is a bit more general and that is what would make something performance based on a CPFF type award?  Tying deliverables to the fixed fee so that if they don't meet the deliverable or to a lesser degree (ie, if trying to provide vaccines to a certain % of the population, tying different fee amounts to different % levels) they get reduced fee?  I know that PWS is required to have identified standards, but I guess the point I'm trying to get to is where is the 'so what' if they don't meet the standards?  I know it then becomes possible to terminate, but that is not likely or desirable if for example they only miss one or two performance standards out of 40 or 50.  

The main difference between a PWS and an ordinary SOW is that under a PWS you specify performance in terms of result instead of process.

A cost-reimbursesment contract with a PWS would be like any other CR contract. The contractor would promise only to make its best effort to perform in accordance with the PWS within the estimated cost. If the contractor could not do so within the estimated cost, then the government would face the choice of either funding all or part of any overrun, terminating the contract for convenience, or letting the contract expire without termination. If the contract is T for C'ed or allowed to expire, the contractor would be entitled to a fee equal to the percentage of work completed. I cannot say how the percentage would be calculated in your case.

Termination for default is not an option for failure to perform unless the government can show that the contractor's failure was due to failure to make its best effort, which wouldn't be easy. In any case, there isn't much difference between T for C and T for D under a CPFF contract. Under a T for D the contractor can be denied fee.

You can make a CR/PWS contract as complicated as you like by providing for fee reduction in case of unsatisfactory performance in terms of the PWS standards, but it might be more trouble than it's worth. You could write a CPAF contract.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DCChris23 said:

My other question is a bit more general and that is what would make something performance based on a CPFF type award?

Admittedly little experience with cost reimbursement contracts so just offering this thought - FAR 16.4.   I see no mention of a CPFF begging the question does a CPFF provide incentive as anticipated in performance based contracting to provide for potential reward for above the contracts baseline expectations for performance in cost control, timely performance, technical quality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Carl:

The FAR description of CPFF does not mention the use of an incentive with that contract type. The use of an incentive with CPFF would be unorthodox, but I do not know of any reason that an agency could not write a special contract clause providing for payment of different amounts of fixed fee for different levels of performance. It would not violate any rule that I know, and I do not believe that it would be a FAR deviation. (Although, I probably just prompted Don Mansfield to say that it would.) I think that the only limitation would be the statutory percentage limits in FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, if you're not going to be the "that's a deviation" guy, I will be.  A CPFF contract with an incentive arrangement sounds more than a little like an "incentive contract," and FAR 16.402-1(a) says:

Quote

  No incentive contract may provide for other incentives without also providing a cost incentive (or constraint).

Don't you think the arrangement Vern postulates deviates from this mandate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...