formerfed

Either of these two are excellent choices. In the case with BPAs, take the contracting office out of purchasing except establishing the BPAs. Designate program office personnel as ordering officials. Administrative costs should be close to that of a P Card action

The short answer is you are fine using FY 24 funds since it appears your agency need is a FY24 requirement. But the detailed and precise answer is found by researching this from here at Wifcon Bona Fide Need rule

Agree with the above posts. If I were you I would not try to build a case for higher profit using weighted guidelines or restructuring assumptions. It would be different to get much over 15-18%. What I would do is start negotiations emphasizing risks your company is assuming in the fixed price arrangement. Be prepared to explain in layman’s terms the complexity and potential complications in performance. I recently saw data showing 25-30% profit is fairly common in the commercial sector within the technology sectors. If the government wants to attract the best in the marketplace, it needs to better understand what’s happening from the business perspective especially with the latest technology. You just need to decide on the minimum profit level you can get by with and the government needs to decide how important you and your contract performance is to them. Maybe you both decide agreement can’t be reached and it’s not worth it.

Answers to a couple questions will help with advice. How often over the course of a year are arbitrators needed and how large is the potential pool of BPA holders?

Great point! I’ll add past experiences over the life of the existing contract.

Again,Bob, thanks for all you do with this site. An amazing resource with enjoyable discussions as well. @Voyager thanks for sharing this. Great tip!

This also is potentially way above a contracting officers discretionary actions. I would get the agency budget officer and congressional liaison officer involved. They can check with the committee staffers.

Nope. Google gsa advantage and you’ll see everything it’s used for

Many agencies do use the SF-182 for this if the speaker is presenting educational or informative information.

Where does Vern’s reference support use of agreement?

Sorry, I meant my comment was directed to Carl and others interested here edit: @Vern Edwards Thanks again for the informative and comprehensive response

16.603-1 Description. A letter contract is a written preliminary contractual instrument that authorizes the contractor to begin immediately manufacturing supplies or performing services. It’s a contract and not an “arrangement” whatever that is

From DFARS 217.74

@FrankJonThis also is similar language used by GAO on page 17 of the report linked above by Vern. We can split hairs on contract terminology all day but a contractor performing under a UCA is essentially reimbursed. That’s why it’s critical to definitiize a fixed price contract as soon as possible.

We don’t know what, if anything, the successful offeror provided to the government in way of explanation. I’ve seen situations where a contractor feels they will learn processes well over time and develop methodologies, tools and techniques to become more efficient. The strategy is replace staff over time with lower paid employees. This would be a good point to discuss during the debriefing.