I have a maintenance service contract for vehicles. It crosses fiscal years. It has an over and above CLIN that includes travel but mostly repair parts, can this CLIN be funded in full and cross fiscal years? It is inherently part of the overall contract service.

Has the over and above work been defined? Or do you obligate a lump-sum and reconcile after ordering the over and above work?

Recommend reviewing FAR 32.703-3. Your agency most likely has guidance in its supplement at paragraph (b).

21 hours ago, Mattt said:

Recommend reviewing FAR 32.703-3. Your agency most likely has guidance in its supplement at paragraph (b).

I think the OP is asking if he can fund the over and above work before it has been identified. I also question when over and above work--as defined at DFARS 252.217-7028--would be considered severable.

I think this is a common practice that may or may not be correct, depending on the specific contract in question. While there are clear statutory exceptions to the bona fide need rule that allow funding a severable service across fiscal years (10 U.S.C. § 3133 for DoD and 41 U.S.C. § 3902 non-DoD) I think the question of whether a separate repair parts CLIN really should be funded across fiscal years depends on whether the requirement for parts is sufficiently specific to create a recordable obligation at the time the CLIN is funded. According to the GAO Redbook Chapter 7 B.1.C "The [Antideficiency Act] requires documentary evidence of a binding agreement for specific goods or services. An agreement that fails this test is not a valid obligation."

As for what constitutes specific the Redbook provides B-196109 where an order for a specific quantity of "REGULATORY, WARNING, AND GUIDE SIGNS" based on information to be supplied later was not sufficiently firm and complete to be considered a legal obligation. I think that based on this interpretation a contract line item for repair parts, which parts to be specified later by the government, would be improper. However, if the government is not really involved and the contractor purchases whatever repair parts are necessary, within a specified not-to-exceed amount, to complete the repair services they are contracted to provide it seems like it would be ok.

I think the issue is that there are many contracts (not necessarily yours) where the government uses over and above parts/ODC CLINs to have contractors buy all sorts of things which the government tells them to buy later, which probably technically violates the bona fide needs rule (both by recording the obligation at initial award/funding of a parts CLIN before the requirement is firm and complete, and by directing the contractor make an ODC purchase of a now specific new need in a future year with the previous year's funds).

16 hours ago, Witty_Username said:

depending on the specific contract in question.

Does it depend on the contract or does it depend on the funding for the contract? By example in this thread the original poster has not identified if the funds are "no year" or otherwise.

I missed that the over and above work was for "repair parts." That's not how I think of over and above work as contemplated by the DFARS.

On 6/25/2025 at 8:17 AM, C Culham said:

Does it depend on the contract or does it depend on the funding for the contract?

I think half the issues depend on the funding: if it is "no year" funding then there would be no issue with the fiscal year when the specific requirement was finally established, i.e. when the actual repair part required was identified, but it would still seem to be improper to record the obligation upon initial award (or funding) of the repair part CLIN before the need for any specific repair part occurred.

That said, I've seen this type of contract used many times to mitigate the fact that it could take 60 days to fund and award a new contract for a specific repair part once the need is identified without an ODC parts CLIN, potentially deadlining a piece of equipment; my recommendation was always to try to take the government out of the loop as much as possible to reduce the appearance that the government is "placing the order" only when the specific parts need is identified, so writing the service part of the contract to say that the requirement is to keep such and such piece of equipment functional using the labor CLIN for the labor and the parts CLIN for the parts, and basing the obligated amount on historical maintenance costs. This seems to align more closely with GAO's opinion in B-321296 where they found it proper for the government to obligate funding for court reporting in the next year based on a reasonable estimate.

1 hour ago, Witty_Username said:

but it would still seem to be improper to record the obligation upon initial award (or funding) of the repair part CLIN before the need for any specific repair part occurred.

I do not think it would be improper if "no year" funds.

"It follows that the bona fide needs rule does not apply to no-year funds. 43 Comp. Gen. 657, 661 (1964). See also B-279886, Apr. 28, 1998. Without a prescribed period of availability, there is no fixed period during which the bona fide need must arise, and thus no fixed period in which the funds must be obligated and expended."

Reference GAO Red Book, Volume I, Page 5-15

I’ve run into this many times over the years. In every instance involving government budget, comptroller, fiscal law, PM, and CO/KO, it boiled down to specificity. An obligation must meet several criteria including specificity - GAO Redbook 7-17. Theres an example cited in the GAO decision Witty_Username mentioned. I agree with what Witty posted in total. It also doesn’t matter if funds are no year or not in defining whether an obligation is proper or not.

In the instances I was involved with and applying it here, if someone showed a history of that repair parts were regularly used in maintenance, it’s fine.