Will somebody smarter & more experienced than I am please explain what's going on in this contract action, as reported in the DoW's daily report? I am trying to envision the sequence of events and now my head is hurting.

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri has been awarded a maximum $41,801,543 modification (P00004) to an undefinitized delivery order (SPRPA1-24-F-0051) issued against a three-year requirements contract (SPRPA1-22-D-001U) to retroactively increase line items and establish additional funding to extend the existing undefinitized contract action. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 3204 (a)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. Location of performance is Missouri, with a performance completion date of Sept. 16, 2027. The military services are Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2025 through 2026 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In FY22, DLA awarded a requirements contract to Boeing. In FY24, DLA issued an undefinitized delivery order under the contract. This announces the fourth modification to that delivery order.

49 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

In FY22, DLA awarded a requirements contract to Boeing. In FY24, DLA issued an undefinitized delivery order under the contract. This announces the fourth modification to that delivery order.

So the customer has modified for the fourth time an undefinitized delivery order under a definitized requirements contract? Okay. Sure. But why? Why do you even need a UCA when you have accepted terms in the parent contract?

51 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

So the customer has modified for the fourth time an undefinitized delivery order under a definitized requirements contract? Okay. Sure. But why? Why do you even need a UCA when you have accepted terms in the parent contract?

Well, for example, the specific quantity needed by the Agency from time to time, at a specified delivery address needed by the Agency, and the price for that specific need in order to pay for it.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by Neil Roberts
sp.

58 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

So the customer has modified for the fourth time an undefinitized delivery order under a definitized requirements contract? Okay. Sure. But why? Why do you even need a UCA when you have accepted terms in the parent contract?

I did a quick search and I think someone made a labeling mistake with the contract type. What I saw was it’s a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) and not a requirements contract. The BOA likely contained some terms and conditions but probably not prices.

The War Department site https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/4305669/ summarizes it as follows:

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri has been awarded a maximum $41,801,543 modification (P00004) to an undefinitized delivery order (SPRPA1-24-F-0051) issued against a three-year requirements contract (SPRPA1-SPRPA1-22-D-001U)22-D-001U) to retroactively increase line items and establish additional funding to extend the existing undefinitized contract action. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 3204 (a)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. Location of performance is Missouri, with a performance completion date of Sept. 16, 2027. The military services are Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2025 through 2026 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

:

1 hour ago, here_2_help said:

So the customer has modified for the fourth time an undefinitized delivery order under a definitized requirements contract? Okay. Sure. But why? Why do you even need a UCA when you have accepted terms in the parent contract?

Probably because the parent contract wasn't completely priced.

This is what Googles AI search showed. So the overall agreement under which orders are placed is a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA). Apparently SPRPA1-24-F-0051, which here_2_help inquired about, is an order which hasn’t been definitized.

Yes, SPRPA1-22-D-001U is a

basic ordering agreement (BOA), or more specifically, a Boeing Captains of Industry (BCOI) contract type that functions similarly to a BOA by establishing terms and conditions for future orders between The Boeing Company and the government for performance-based support requirements. This strategic contract serves as a primary vehicle for the direct material support of various military services by allowing for the placement of undefinitized or fixed-price delivery orders against it as needs arise. 

Key Aspects of the SPRPA1-22-D-001U Contract

• Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) Functionality: While named a BCOI contract, it operates as a BOA by pre-negotiating terms and conditions that will apply to multiple future orders placed over its duration. 

• Strategic Procurement Vehicle: It is the primary mechanism for procuring performance-based support and direct material support for the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. 

• Contractor: The Boeing Company. 

• Purpose: To streamline the procurement process for anticipated needs and ensure continued supply chain performance. 

• Flexibility: It accommodates both undefinitized delivery orders and fixed-price orders for various consumable items and support requirements. 

• Period of Performance: The initial base period is three years, starting on September 17, 2024, and ending on September 16, 2027, with the potential for option periods extending its total duration. 

23 hours ago, here_2_help said:

I am trying to envision the sequence of events

How about this (with some emphasis added)....

"The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, has been awarded a $278,000,000 fixed-price incentive, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order (SPRPA1-22-D-0001) against a 15-year basic ordering agreement (SPRAP1-14-D-002U) for the procurement of F/A-18 aircraft consumable parts. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a five-year base contract with one five-year option period. The performance completion date is Aug. 8, 2027. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2022 through 2027 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." Ref: https://www.war.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3122316/

So by my read 22-D-0001 is a Indefinite Delivery Contract (see "D" at FAR 4.1603) written against an existing BOA for aircraft parts. A Requirements Contract is a type of Indefinite Delivery Contract (Ref. FAR 16.5). 0001 was a undefinitized contract yet had Delivery Order SPRPA1-24-F-0051 issued against it. Remember "F" means task/delivery order (Ref. FAR 4.1603). The delivery order (why it is not a task order God only knows) appears to now be modified by modification number 4 to add additional parts and funding for same.

Or stated another way as we generally understand case law a modification to contract issued against a contract that was issued against a BOA.

Makes one wonder when definitization will take place?

And I am not sure but this seems to relate......

https://sam.gov/opp/48e1e174757147fd8e00ce589e751375/view

Thank you all. This is helpful.

I think it was the "retroactive" nature of Mod 4 that caught my eye. It appears that, instead of issuing a new Delivery/Task Order for new parts, the KO chose to add additional line items to the existing undefinitized Order, which (I suppose) means that it will now take longer for the parties to definitize. If only the F/A-18 were a mature program with history that the parties could use to reach quick price agreement ....

19 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

If only the F/A-18 were a mature program with history that the parties could use to reach quick price agreement

My understanding is that from the contractor perspective TINA creates enough risk that they are unable to quickly certify cost and pricing data even with significant historical pricing information. Inability to certify may be how they got into a UCA situation in the first place.

edit: in fact looking at some notes I think I heard this explicitly from NAVAIR regarding the difficulties of using "priced offers" based on 20 years of cost history in the F/A-18 program to speed the negotiating process.

On 9/17/2025 at 7:44 AM, here_2_help said:

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri has been awarded a maximum $41,801,543 modification (P00004) to an undefinitized delivery order (SPRPA1-24-F-0051) issued against a three-year requirements contract (SPRPA1-22-D-001U) to retroactively increase line items and establish additional funding to extend the existing undefinitized contract action. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 3204 (a)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. Location of performance is Missouri, with a performance completion date of Sept. 16, 2027. The military services are Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2025 through 2026 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

It appears to be an undefinitized modification of an undefinitized letter contract (i.e., the delivery order) issued under a requirements contract. Might be an unpriced spares order.

No biggie in the DOD world.

46 minutes ago, Witty_Username said:

My understanding is that from the contractor perspective TINA creates enough risk that they are unable to quickly certify cost and pricing data even with significant historical pricing information. Inability to certify may be how they got into a UCA situation in the first place.

edit: in fact looking at some notes I think I heard this explicitly from NAVAIR regarding the difficulties of using "priced offers" based on 20 years of cost history in the F/A-18 program to speed the negotiating process.

That's really interesting. If I were advising the parties I would point out that the risk can be reduced by having the KO agree on what was relied on to reach price agreement. Something something fighter engine litigation.

1 hour ago, here_2_help said:

That's really interesting. If I were advising the parties I would point out that the risk can be reduced by having the KO agree on what was relied on to reach price agreement.

1 hour ago, here_2_help said:

That's really interesting. If I were advising the parties I would point out that the risk can be reduced by having the KO agree on what was relied on to reach price agreement.

See FAR 15.406-2(c ):

(c) The contracting officer and contractor are encouraged to reach a prior agreement on criteria for establishing closing or cutoff dates when appropriate in order to minimize delays associated with proposal updates. Closing or cutoff dates should be included as part of the data submitted with the proposal and, before agreement on price, data should be updated by the contractor to the latest closing or cutoff dates for which the data are available. Use of cutoff dates coinciding with reports is acceptable, as certain data may not be reasonably available before normal periodic closing dates (e.g., actual indirect costs). Data within the contractor’s or a subcontractor’s organization on matters significant to contractor management and to the Government will be treated as reasonably available. What is significant depends upon the circumstances of each acquisition.