Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fixed-price incentive'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 1 result

  1. I recently had a disagreement with a contracting officer (KO) about the applicability of the Limitation of Funds (LOF) clause with regards to FPIF CLINs. The KO notified me that he intends to add the LOF clause to the contract and have it apply to the the FPIF CLINs. I responded that per the prescription of the clause at FAR 32.706-2(b), the clause only applies to incrementally funded cost-reimbursement (CR) contracts, so it should not be added to the contract (contact only has FPIF and FFP CLINs; no CR CLINs). He argued that the clause applies to flexibly priced CLINs, and that FPIF CLINs were in a sense a CR CLINs, since 100% costs would be reimbursed up to the Target Cost and partially up to the Ceiling Price, should the cost exceed the Target Cost. As I looked closer at the LOF clause, I began to focus on the language below from paragraph (b), and read it to mean that the clause in essence limits the Government's liability at the amount funded (allotted). However, under an FPIF contract, the maximum Government liability would be the Ceiling Price, not the amount funded. The Contractor agrees to perform, or have performed, work on the contract up to the point at which the total amount paid and payable by the Government under the contract approximates but does not exceed the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. For this contract in particular, it includes a payments clause that requires periodic submittals of a revised billing price (RBP) for each FPIF CLIN for progress payments, which is based on estimates at completions (EACs). For all of the FPIF CLINs in this contract, the RBPs exceed the Target Cost and Target Price, and in some cases are at the Ceiling Price, but the contract is only funded at the Target Price amount, as the Government currently lacks the funding to appropriately fund the FPIF CLINs to the RBP amounts. My concern in accepting this clause and allowing it to be applied to the FPIF CILNs, I would effectively be lowering the the Government's maximum limitation of liability on the FPIF CLINs from the Ceiling Price to the current level of funding, which is the Target Price. Has anyone encountered this issue before? The KO acted like this clause is added all of the time to FPIF contracts. As a note, I have actually requested the clause be removed from other contracts our company holds that have no CR CLINs, and the KOs of those contracts have agreed that it should not have been inserted into those contracts. Is my assessment of the impact to the Government's limitation of liability by inserting this clause accurate? If unilaterally added, would the clause be self deleting since it only applies to CR CLINs, for which this contract has none?
  • Create New...