I have a requirement for operations and maintenance.  The previous iterations of the contract had multiple pricing structured line items (FFP, T&M, CPFF) all combined on a C type contract.  We are getting ready to solicit the new requirement, and I am having the Program Office convert their SOW to an IDIQ structure for the different task types.  The customer wants to award one task order with multiple CLINs, all with different pricing structures.  Their argument is that it will be easier to move money around if needed.  I think having a separate task order for each task type (and pricing structure) is a cleaner way to administer the contract and keep tabs on the funding.  I can't find anything regulation or policy wise that requires the work to be on separate task orders.  Is there a better argument than just having a cleaner contract?

8 hours ago, Kim H said:

Their argument is that it will be easier to move money around if needed.

While it can be done this reasoning for selection of contract type, inclusive of combining contract types, is flawed.  The best I can do is point to FAR subpart 16.104.

23 hours ago, Kim H said:

Their argument is that it will be easier to move money around if needed.

This may be an oversimplification of a key stakeholder interest (or my explanation may be an overcomplification of something really simple 😜). But this could point to the need for a leadership discussion among key stakeholders (contracting, fiscal, requiring activity, etc.) to settle on a contract structure that balances the competing interests of all parties. Contracting may want simple administration and compliance, fiscal may want a particular funding commitment/obligation profile, the requiring activity may want flexibility (i.e. to move money around); and everyone will probably be happier with the outcome in the long run if you take all these things into account in creating the contract structure...

28 minutes ago, Witty_Username said:

This may be an oversimplification of a key stakeholder interest (or my explanation may be an overcomplification of something really simple 😜). But this could point to the need for a leadership discussion among key stakeholders (contracting, fiscal, requiring activity, etc.) to settle on a contract structure that balances the competing interests of all parties. Contracting may want simple administration and compliance, fiscal may want a particular funding commitment/obligation profile, the requiring activity may want flexibility (i.e. to move money around); and everyone will probably be happier with the outcome in the long run if you take all these things into account in creating the contract structure...

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