7 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

The sentence above in FAR 52.232-20, does not give a contracting officer the unilateral right to change the estimated cost specified in the Schedule of the contract

What language in the excerpt quoted above, or any where else in FAR 52.232-20,  indicates that the contracting officer does not have a unilateral right to change the estimated cost of a cost reimbursement contract?  If the contracting officer does not have a unilateral right to change the estimated cost of the contract, what language in the clause indicates that any such change must be a bilateral change?

13 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

when the contracting officer provides the Contractor with a revised estimated cost in accordance with this sentence, the contractor is obligated to continue performance and/or incur costs in excess of the estimated cost in the Schedule.

What language in 52.232-20 requires a contractor to incur costs in excess of the estimated cost of the contract?

"until"

7 hours ago, Neil Roberts said:

until"

Dodgeball

Hmmmmm,

 

 

52.243-2 Changes-Cost-Reimbursement (Aug 1987) (Alternate I)

(a) The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes within the general scope of this contract in any one or more of the following:

(1) Description of services to be performed.

(2) Time of performance (i.e., hours of the day, days of the week, etc.).

(3) Place of performance of the services.

(b) If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of this contract, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the-

(1) Estimated cost, delivery or completion schedule, or both;

(2) Amount of any fixed fee; and

(3) Other affected terms and shall modify the contract accordingly.

(c) The Contractor must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon a proposal submitted before final payment of the contract.

(d) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed.

(e) Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause, the estimated cost of this contract and, if this contract is incrementally funded, the funds allotted for the performance of this contract, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written modification of the contract indicating the new contract estimated cost and, if this contract is incrementally funded, the new amount allotted to the contract. Until this modification is made, the Contractor shall not be obligated to continue performance or incur costs beyond the point established in the Limitation of Cost or Limitation of Funds clause of this contract.

 

9 hours ago, Neil Roberts said:

@Retreadfed, here is my take about that:

The sentence above in FAR 52.232-20, does not give a contracting officer the unilateral right to change the estimated cost specified in the Schedule of the contract. Instead, when the contracting officer provides the Contractor with a revised estimated cost in accordance with this sentence, the contractor is obligated to continue performance and/or incur costs in excess of the estimated cost in the Schedule.

Let's think this one through. According to your interpretation, there are two distinct amounts--the "estimated cost in the Schedule" and a "revised estimated cost" that is provided by the contracting officer. The amounts could only be made equal by means of a bilateral modification that revised the "estimated cost in the Schedule." Regardless, the contractor is obligated to continue up to the "revised estimated cost."

Assume the contractor does not agree to a bilateral modification that increases the "estimated cost in the Schedule."

1. Would the contractor be required to provide the notification in paragraph (b) of FAR 52.232-20 if they expected to exceed 75% of the "revised estimated cost"?

2. If the contracting officer issued a change order increasing the cost of performance, would the contractor be required to incur costs in excess of the "estimated cost in the Schedule", but less than the "revised estimated cost"?

3. Regarding paragraph (e) of FAR 52.232-20, would termination costs be limited to the "estimated cost in the Schedule" or the "revised estimated cost"? 

15 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Let's think this one through. According to your interpretation, there are two distinct amounts--the "estimated cost in the Schedule" and a "revised estimated cost" that is provided by the contracting officer.

Lets see how this would work mechanically based on what appears to be Neil's interpretation.  The contracting officer receives notice from the contractor that an overrun will occur.  The contractor tells the contracting officer how much more money will be needed to complete the contract.  The contracting officer agrees and obtains the additional funding required.  Because the contracting officer cannot unilaterally change the estimated cost in the Schedule, the contracting officer sends the contractor an e-mail informing the contractor of the revised estimated cost of the contract.  At the same time, the contracting officer adds additional funding to the contract by an administrative modification.  Thus, the amount obligated on the contract exceeds the estimated cost of the contract specified in the Schedule.  The contractor is then obligated to perform up to the revised estimated cost of the contract specified in the contracting officer's e-mail that is not part of the contract.  Is that correct?

I think that's what he's saying.