amthomf

So do you all think Contractors will just delay official price agreement until they can verify their cost and pricing data is current, accurate, and complete?

Joel, Understand but is it really that unreasonable to ask for? Some of the hours I'm seeing in proposals related to this issue seem excessive and yes we take exception to them in negotiations but how well we do....well that is a nother question. Thanks for discussing.

I definitely respect your opinion so I guess I need to re-analyze. But if you paid for something and you aren't changing the format how much more expensive should it be? Also, you say the deliverable serves little or no useful purpose - If you're in a sole source environment and would like to know how well you did in negotiations, data concerning the actuals may be very valuable to future efforts/negotiations.

My suggestion (yes I know this is an old post so probably will not help now) - If they are charging you to generate an EVMs like report require that they provide it to you in Contractor format. Obviously on FFP this is not something they will want to do. Should make negotiations interesting. By the way, CostPriceAnalyst, what was your result?

Does anyone have experience in working with offsets in the FMS arena? Given the inadequate regulations and policy associated with offsets it seems almost impossible for COs to do their job. For example, DFARS 225.7303-2(a)(3) recognizes the cost of managing offsets as an allowable cost, “A U.S. defense contractor may recover all costs incurred for offset agreements with a foreign government or international organization if the LOA is financed wholly with customer cash or repayable foreign military finance credits”. How does one deconflict the aforementioned regulation, given the fact very few contractors provide adequate date to allow for meaningful analysis and fair and reasonable determination, with the following: DFARS 225.7303(a), “Price FMS contracts using the same principles used in pricing other defense contracts. However, application of the pricing principles in FAR Parts 15 and 31 to an FMS contract may result in prices that differ from other defense contract prices for the same item due to the considerations in this section”. Any insight into this topic would be much appreciated.

B-317636 April 21, 2009, pg 14 of 26 - Severable services, which are recurring in nature, are bona fide needs at the time the service is completed, and obligations for severable services should be charged to appropriations current at that time (B-287619, July 5, 2001, at 6). Really?? Am I missing something here? So if the AFI is more restrictive than DFARS 232.703-1 in what instance, if any, would an Air Force program ever be able to incrementally fund a firm fixed price O&M effort?

Leslie, seeing that you work for the Air Force you may find the following useful for future efforts. AFI 65-601 Vol 1, 4.61, Service Contracts Crossing Fiscal Years - The total cost of the services to be provided over the 12- month period must be reflected in the contract and that amount must be obligated when the contract is signed.

Thank you both.

Does DFARS 215.371 "Only one Offer" apply to brand name J&A's where competition is expected? A different way of asking the question - If you have brand name J&A where competition is expected is it considered a competitive solicitation?

My interpretation of what summerlady51 is trying to say is that if you have a contact, say a CPFF type contract funded with annual appropriations, and the contractor doesn’t have a need for all the funds obligated on the contract to meet the requirements in the contract you cannot use the “unused/money left on the contract” to fund the period of performance extension. This makes sense to me since you would have a bona fide need of the next FY at the time you extend the PoP.

I think a formal requirement for a pledge is of little value added; however, I believe if individuals, such as those that frequent wifcon, were to take a personal pledge to consciously try and improve the acquisition process and document their finding for others to view I think it would be of value. If only there was a forum we could do such a thing…. For the most part I think all these types of initiatives go back to the fact we need to be thinking in everything we do. The concept of thinking before we do something was detailed in the following blog post by Mr. Edwards – Great Read http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blog/2/entry-3019-think-maybe/ . So to address the question as to whether the comments concerning Mr. Kelman’s article are too harsh, I think the answer is yes. Even though the idea is very fluffy you never know who will read it and actually do it. If an individual has a goal of implementing one idea to improve the process, if nothing else, they should be actively thinking about how to improve which I believe is half the battle.

Rios0311, You stated that the effort in question is relatively small. Perhaps you could award a single option bilaterally as a new contract if it is under SAT and use the reasoning that you have been discussing throughout the thread as your justification for doing so (See FAR 13.106((1)(ii)). I would go further to quantify the costs of conducting a new competition and demonstrate the benefit of awarding a sole source contract to the Government. Of course before you decided to pursue this path you would need to do adequate market research in order to determine that a new solicitation would result in a more optimal situation for the Government (i.e. better performance, better T&C’s, better price). Once you have the contract in place for a year go out and conduct a new competition. All of this babbling could be for not if a single option is not less than SAT but your reaching so I thought I would reach as well.

Rios0311, Since in your original post you stated this is not a unique service and other contractors could provide the service, in order to comply with CICA, I think you are required to put out a new solicitation or process a J&A for the incumbent (which doesn't sound supportable based on your description).

Follow on question. If a contractor's business base was a 100% government work would it matter to the Government (not a specific agency) if proposal prep was charged direct or indirect? If so, why?

Retreadfed, 52.232-18 isn’t being used as an authority for payment before funds are available, but as the authority to accept supplies or services before funds are available for payment as long as funds have been appropriated. I don’t see a conflict between Cessna and 52.232-18 either. I also don’t believe the Cessna case supports the scenario described in my first sentence – accepting supplies or services as soon as funds are appropriated, regardless if the agency actually has the funds to make payments.