Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
WhoFARted?

Definitized or Undefinitized Task Order?

Recommended Posts

My agency cut an IDIQ K for emergency services.  A KO subsequently cut a FFP Task Order off that K.  The Task Order pulled the unit price from the IDIQ K, stated a quantity of "1", quantity type was "job" and a Not To Exceed total price was inserted.  My question is: is this a definitized contract action?  The DFARS indicates that a KO (with HCA approval) may issue a undefinitized Task Order and details the procedures.  DFARS 217.74.  Also, I'm wondering, assuming the Task Order was a UCA and no HCA approval was obtained (for the TO itself and to exceed 50% of the NTE amount), is the next step processing as an unauthorized commitment?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the contract say about ordering procedures?

It doesn't sound like the contractor submitted a proposal--are the unit prices listed by job or by labor rate?

An NTE doesn't sound very firm as far as firm fixed price orders go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if the base ID/IQ contract has fixed unit prices, does the scope of work for the task order identify specific quantity or quantities of the unit(s) ordered?   In other words, is the lump sum quantity ordered identifiable within the task order? More info is necessary about the scope of work for the task order. Please clarify.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are assuming that the task order is undefinitized, it would seem that some aspect of it is still undefined.  What is not defined?  

Definitized FFP Construction contracts may contain line items with estimated unit-priced quantities of work but the scope of work itself is identifiable. It just might not be possible to determine final quantities without measuring the actual work performed (e.g., tons of asphalt concrete, linear feet of crack repairs, cubic yards/meters of unclassified excavation and/or rock excavation, etc.  I do believe that the government could put an NTE price in the award, to assure that the contractor wouldn’t exceed available funds.  However, it would seem that the government would include a requirement for the contractor to  provide some form of advanced notice that the quantities and/or overall task order price are going to be exceeded, prior to exceeding the overall funding available.  

The line items wouldn’t be priced as “job”, in that case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kevlar51 said:

What does the contract say about ordering procedures?

It doesn't sound like the contractor submitted a proposal--are the unit prices listed by job or by labor rate?

An NTE doesn't sound very firm as far as firm fixed price orders go.

It contains the standard ordering clauses: 52.216-18, 52.216-19.  Also 52.216-22 is included.  Use of the NTE price in the FFP TO is the source of my confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Also, if the base ID/IQ contract has fixed unit prices, does the scope of work for the task order identify specific quantity or quantities of the unit(s) ordered?   In other words, is the lump sum quantity ordered identifiable within the task order? More info is necessary about the scope of work for the task order. Please clarify.  

Joel, not exactly.  The unit prices are provided and a ramp-up schedule that states a range of quantity per day to be expected.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

If you are assuming that the task order is undefinitized, it would seem that some aspect of it is still undefined.  What is not defined?  

Definitized FFP Construction contracts may contain line items with estimated unit-priced quantities of work but the scope of work itself is identifiable. It just might not be possible to determine final quantities without measuring the actual work performed (e.g., tons of asphalt concrete, linear feet of crack repairs, cubic yards/meters of unclassified excavation and/or rock excavation, etc.  I do believe that the government could put an NTE price in the award, to assure that the contractor wouldn’t exceed available funds.  However, it would seem that the government would include a requirement for the contractor to  provide some form of advanced notice that the quantities and/or overall task order price are going to be exceeded, prior to exceeding the overall funding available.  

The line items wouldn’t be priced as “job”, in that case.  

Joel, the TO does not definitize quantity or total price, subject to the ramp-up schedule discussed above.  To me, setting a NTE price on a FFP CLIN (the only CLIN in the TO) implies that a definitization schedule is forthcoming, which was not the case.  Otherwise, the CLIN is essentially a Cost Reimbursement CLIN disguised as FFP, which the IDIQ does not envision or authorize.  

What's the authority for "FFP Construction ... estimated unit-priced quantities of work but the scope of work itself is identifiable...the government could put an NTE price in the award"?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 12:06 PM, WhoFARted? said:

What's the authority for "FFP Construction ... estimated unit-priced quantities of work but the scope of work itself is identifiable...the government could put an NTE price in the award"?    

See FAR 36.207 (a) and (b).  The contract price at award would be based upon the sum of all CLIN prices, correct?  

The final price would be based upon the actual quantities of unit-priced items plus lump sum priced items.  

The government could, under certain circumstances, include contract language that would limit performance of some unit-priced items to the extent that overruns would cause the overall contract price to exceed the amount of funds available for the project.  How about the Anti-Deficiency Act as authority for that? I’m not even sure that one would need specific authority (i.e., FAR) to include such language, as long as the work is within the scope of the contract. I’m not referring to in-scope changes here, just net overruns of estimated quantities for the stated work. 

I can think of a couple of examples off the top.  

I remember an airfield joint sealing and crack repair contract at KI Sawyer AFB in 1975, with unit-priced bid items, based upon estimated quantities.

The estimated quantities of joint sealing were pretty accurate.  However, we couldn’t accurately estimate the total footage of cracked concrete slabs.  

 After completing the joint re-sealing and agreeing upon the actual measured quantities, we sealed as many cracks in the airfield pavements as available funding would allow, which included a modest overrun of the estimated quantity. 

Sealing more cracks had to wait ‘til the following fiscal year.  

Airfield pavement and base roadway paint striping was another example. We’d stripe all of the airfield and as much of the base Roads and streets as funds would allow...  I don’t remember whether there was an overrun or underrun of street quantities.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×