phynarphis

Vern and All, Thank you for your input. At the end of the day, I am trying to convince the Contracting Officer we can justifiably categorize as PBA. We have briefed senior leadership that certain actions we are working will be PBA. I think Vern hits the real point, it is very unclear what PBA is. Most responders recognize what the textbook PBA example is, the one with results and FFP to achieve those results. But, we also have to define the non-text book example of where does a requirement move from traditional to PBA. It is fuzzy and most likely intentionally so. I plan to look at the GAO report that analyzed FPDS-NG data to see if what was being coded as PBA was actually PBA. If GAO allowed non-FFP contracts to be considered PBA, then I think I will have all the evidence I need to convince my CO. Thanks again.

Yes, it is the reference to using the number of hours as part of how you describe the work. Fundmentally, my client's have a hard time suggesting what the volume of work is for the objectives we identify and resort to how many FTEs they think they need.

I am trying to figure out whether I can fit within the defination of a performance-based acquisition when I have identified the results or outcomes I want, how I would measure contractors performance and what my acceptable level of performance is, but I can only estimate the volumne of work using labor hours. The FAR defines "Performance-based acquisition (PBA)” as "an acquisition structured around the results to be achieved as opposed to the manner by which the work is to be performed." It then defines “Performance Work Statement (PWS)” as "a statement of work for performance-based acquisitions that describes the required results in clear, specific and objective terms with measurable outcomes." FAR 37.601 ( B ) states: "Performance-based contracts for services shall include— (1) A performance work statement (PWS); (2) Measurable performance standards (i.e., in terms of quality, timeliness, quantity, etc.) and the method of assessing contractor performance against performance standards; and (3) Performance incentives where appropriate. When used, the performance incentives shall correspond to the performance standards set forth in the contract." In describing the term PWS in FAR 37.602( B ), it provides "Agencies shall, to the maximum extent practicable (1) Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided (see 11.002(a)(2) and 11.101); (2) Enable assessment of work performance against measurable performance standards; (3) Rely on the use of measurable performance standards and financial incentives in a competitive environment to encourage competitors to develop and institute innovative and cost-effective methods of performing the work. Thus, does the reference in FAR 37.602( B ) to "the number of hours to be provided" eliminate my effort to otherwise describe the work in terms of results and identifying how to measure and ALP and thus qualify as performance-based.

Vern, Thank you for the reply. FYI, i did come across a case on this question. It is out of COFC, Arch Chemical, Inc. v. U.S. No. 04-1421C, (March 18, 2005). It was a pre-award protest by an incumbent who argued that the government's price/cost evaluation did not consider all the costs to the government and was therefore unreasonable. Court of Federal Claims agreed and essentially said that despite the government wanting more competition, excluding real costs it would face just to obtain more competition is unreasonable. i would post the document if I knew how to up-load it to the site. Thanks again.

I have a situation where a service is being transitioned to government performance from contractor performance. One part of the service was provided by a subcontractor and the government is not going to insource that work. The government is going out with a competitive procurement to establish its own contract with someone to provide this service. To change from that subcontractor (current incumbent) to another source would cause the government to incur a cost to alter various computer systems. Would it be appropriate to include an evaluation factor (in the competitive procurement) that applied an estimated cost for changing the performance of the service from the incumbent to a new vendor ? Let?s assume, that it would cost the Government 50K to alter computer code that would allow it to use a vendor beside the incumbent. Is the Government allowed to include an evaluation factor that somehow says when comparing the price, all non-incumbents will have this 50K added to their pricing ? It would allow the Government to more accurately compare the expected cost of various offers.