Contractor has a fixed price contract (services) written against a GWACS, to run a cafeteria.

Contractor showed, as required, hours by labor category, "for evaluation purposes," in its proposal.

Contractor has subsequently been awarded a mod to run another cafeteria under the contract. Contractor provided a proposal for that mod that estimated hours by labor category (at the discounted rates, because the agency required to Ktr to use those rates in its proposal.) This mod is labelled "fixed price" (not FPLOE). There are deliverables on the mod, however, the CLIN the government is purchasing is a unit of "one month of services", and the contractor has billed for each month of the services with no itemization of hours or demonstration that the deliverables have been produced.

The mod was necessary because the agency needed to continue services while the government evaluates proposals to run cafeteria 2. The agency is not ready to make an award and has asked the contractor to quote for a bilateral mod to run cafeteria 2 for a few months. The agency has asked the contractor to show number of positions to run the cafeteria, with hours and rates, again.

Ktr has been using fewer than half the positions it estimated (in perfectly good faith) in its proposal for the original mod. The agency tech monitor (who is not in close contact with the contract office, which is listed in a different state) has not complained. As far as Ktr knows, the cafeteria is running to the agency's satisfaction.

Is there any risk in the Ktr providing its original estimate (with twice the personnel positions actually used) in its proposal for the mod for extension of the services? Or must Ktr downsize its bid to show the actual number of positions it is using (reducing its profits quite a bit.) This is not a competitive proposal.

Thanks for opinions -

Yes. No.

Could you expatiate?