Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Phillygal

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Sorry for the delay, I had password and computer problems. It's a CPFF term type TO for management support services that began and was funded in FY 11. Option I was exercised in Aug 2012 and is incrementally funded with FY 12 funding prior to 9/30/12 and FY 13 money after 10/1/12. The change order covers a change of location of services. In response to Vern's questions: (1) Yes, the services are severable. (2) Not necessarily, although funds are properly obligated per FY, i.e. before and/or after 9/30, performance of the work does not necessarily correspond with the FY. Funding is used to pay for hours worked, and once an increment is exhausted, payment is made from the next increment. All increments under each option are used to pay for hours worked during a total duration NTE one year. (3) The change order will affect services performed after the mod is issued, so FY 13 and beyond. I'm confused by what is meant by "original contract" in the GAO Red Book. Is there a difference between base contract and original contract? I think that I have an antecedent liability. So, do I have to use FY 11 funds since these were used to fund the base period of the TO? Or, FY 12 funds since the change order is against an option CLIN that was in the original TO and initially funded with FY 12 funds. For my remaining options, should funding for this change order match the type of funding that is used when the option is exercised? Additionally, the following excerpt from 65 Comp. Gen. 741 (1986) is confusing me: IN THIS INSTANCE, MODIFICATION NUMBER FIVE WAS APPROVED IN MAY 1985. THE MODIFICATION INCREASED THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $218,952. ALTHOUGH THE MODIFICATION WAS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT - EXPANDING THE "PRETEST" DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT'S "STATEMENT OF WORK"-- THE INCREASES DID NOT INVOLVE AN ANTECEDENT LIABILITY ENFORCEABLE BY THE CONTRACTOR. SINCE THIS INCREASE IS ABOVE THE CONTRACT CEILING PRICE, WE FIND THAT IT IS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO APPROPRIATIONS AVAILABLE WHEN THE INCREASE WAS GRANTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER; THAT IS, THE 1985 FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION. SIMILAR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE TREATED ACCORDINGLY. Since the modification was based on the original contract, it sounds like that the correct authority for Mod #5 (from the above excerpt) would be the changes clause; which would then establish an antecedent liability. However, the reference to the ceiling price makes me wonder if because I am increaseing the ceiling on my CPFF TO as a result of this change order, maybe I can use FY 13 funding. Here's what I'm thinking: If the changes clause is your authority, then you have an antecedent liability and must use same type of funding that was used in the original contract. Since each CLIN in the original contract will have its own unique funding, use the type of funding that was used for the CLIN that the change order is being issued against. Change Orders may result in increases to the ceiling price but are always antecedent liabilities. Increases to the ceiling price that result from a "new procurement" action that is supported by a J&A or other type of supporting documentation would use current funding. Likewise, increases to the ceiling where your authority is either the Limitation of Funds or Limitation of Cost clauses are not antecedent liabilities and would be funded with current money. Please advise if my logic is not sound. Thanks!
  2. I have a task order that was awarded in FY 11 and funded with annual appropriations; the order also contains options. We are currently in the first option which has been incrementally funded with both FY 12 and FY 13 funds. Based on the antecedent liability rule, (which requires funding change orders with the same type of funding that was used for the "original contract") if I do a change order, do you think it needs to be funded with FY 11, FY 12 or FY 13 funds? I'm already working with Counsel and we are looking to get some feedback as to how others may have handled this situation.
  3. I have issued FFP LOE type contracts that contain CLINs for individual labor categories with hourly rates. These contracts differ from Labor hour type contracts because the contractor is providing a Firm level of effort, as opposed to under a Labor hour type where the contractor is providing labor at fixed rates up to the specified ceiling. Back when WIFCON first started, there was a raging debate regarding the difference between Labor Hour and FFP LOE type contracts. I still maintain that a FFP LOE contains a set (FIRM) number of hours and Fixed rates; while, conversely, a labor hour type contains an estimated # of hours and a ceiling amount - under the Labor Hour, you can "rob Peter to pay Paul" meaning that you can work more or less hours in any labor category up to the ceiling amount. Subsequently, pricing a FFP LOE type contract on a per category/per hour basis is ideal if your LOE is budget-driven and you have on-site surveillance type efforts.
  4. It would depend on the type of solicitation - if you are using an RFP and the award results from your acceptance of the contractor's proposal then award should be at the proposed (offered) price.
  5. formerfed, do you think there is a difference between "labor mix" and "specific level of effort"?
  6. Under a CPFF term type contract, can the labor mix may vary during actual performance since FAR Subpart 16.306(d)(4) states that the contractor is obligated by the contract to provide a specific LOE within a definite time period? If so, what is the difference between the terms "Level of Effort" and "Labor Mix"?
×
×
  • Create New...