I am working to get a contract awarded for contractor logistics supprt. Included in the contract is the unit level and depot level support, which is funded by O&M. The contract will be awarded as a CPFF for X dollars. The question rests in the whether or not we can negotiate FFP modifications, when they become necessary or known through the changes clause processing them through an ECP type process. The reason I say ECP type process, is because an ECP is associated with pre-fielding or production. MWO is the process used once fielded. The scope includes language and depot maintenance provides for modifications, but they are not know at the time of award. The awarded contract is for a baseline of services with language to allow for modifications. The contracting office believes whatever modifications/upgrades become necessary during the performance period would be considered new work requiring a J&A, etc. Conceptually increasing the contract cost without limit.

This is obviously something that is dealt with on a daily in many weapons system PM offices, but I am simply not familiar with the process.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The question [is] whether or not we can negotiate FFP modifications[.]

You can do it, but you will have to establish a contract line item for each modification, add the applicable fixed-price contract clauses, and require the contractor to segregate costs.

PMDave, are you talking about modifications to the contract or modifications to the items being maintained?

Retreadfed, I am talking about both, modifications to the system, which would require a modifcation to the contract to include the respective scope and $ negotiated for the particular modification/upgrade. The contracting office takes issue that the modifications/upgrades are not known at this point, so there is no way the contractor can propose. This point is not contended, but the fact that there will be modifications/upgrades, within the framework of the system, described in general terms in the PWS is known. I suggest that the fact that modifications/upgrades are contemplated within the PWS allows for the negotiation of each discreate modification/upgrade as they do become known is allowable. A for instance is a particular technology is becoming obsolete, so a tech refresh is required, which will not only replace current capability, but increase performance envelope. In order for the system to remain viable this has to be done, but the contracting office contends a market research, J&A, etc.. etc..will have to be done in order to have the same contractor do x modification/upgrade. In other words, a seperate contract might need to be awarded to upgrade a system, for which we already have a contractor logistics support contractor supporting performing maintenance on. I suggest otherwise.

PMDave, are you doing your modifications/upgrades through the ECP process as called out in your SOW, or are you just attempting to address obsolescence as it hits?

I don't think just "contemplating modifications/upgrades within the PWS" allows you to just buy as much as you want to upgrade your system. Working on prior vehicle programs, they were setup as ID/IQ contracts and obsolescence and upgrades were addressed through the ECP process. If they were priced ECPs then we negotiated the price of it and issued a subsequent task order to cover the work required for it while pricing the ECP kit for future delivery orders. This was well established in our SOW though that we would be doing so, i'm not sure that just "contemplating" this in your SOW covers it.