Does a contract for non-severable services have to fully fund the effort (CLIN) at the time the contract is awarded, or can it be incrementally funded with $$ available for obligation at the time of the contract award?

For example, I have a non-severable services R&D contract that was awarded in FY07 for $500,000. CLIN 0001 (base effort) was funded in the amount of $78,000 at contract award using FY07 RDT&E funds. A few days ago I recieved a MIPR from the customer to incrementally fund CLIN 0001 using FY08 RDT&E funds in the amount of $200,000.

Can the contract in this example be incrementally funded? I have heard differing opinions on this. Some say that it can because the FY08 RDT&E was available for obligation at the time of contract award. Others are telling me that it cannot be incrementally funded because in non-severable services contracts, the effort must be fully funded at the time of award.

Any direction (with references) would be greatly appreciated.

Shawn

Check your agency?s regulations. Some allow FFP, R&D contracts to be incrementally funded.

If you have not read the GAO "Red Book" discussion on bona fide needs rule you may also want to visit it as there is discussion of modifications which may help answer your question. The Red Book discussion of bona fide needs can be found here - http://www.wifcon.com/bonafidecontents.htm

elgueromeromero, first, to clarify, are you actually buying services or are you buying R&D? You mentioned that you are using R&D money. So if you are actually buying services, what's the connection to the type of appropriation? I would suspect that you work an an R&D activity, and thus have permission to use R&D funds for other purposes.

I don't understand why you're asking the question. What do you mean when you ask if the contract can be incrementally funded? The contract has already been awarded. It must have been awarded as either fully funded or incrementally funded. Which is it? Are you asking if the contract was awarded illegally?