Jump to content

How do you descope for CPFF Clins if the govt no longer needs the requirements?


Recommended Posts

This topic is subject to Rule 17.  The OP needs to respond to others' questions by Friday or it will be locked.

Quote

17.  Original posters must not disappear after they post a question.  Disappearing makes it impossible to provide clarifications of the original post so that others may respond intelligently.  It is normal for the original poster to be asked for clarification.  The Orginal Poster has 5 calendar days after the original post to answer any questions.  After that, the Topic will be locked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the word “descope” would disappear from 1102 vocabulary.  Are we talking about a (1) a change order under to the Changes clause; (2) a partial termination under the Termination clause; or (3) something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of "descope," the proper term of art is "deductive change."

See Government Contract Changes (August 2023 Update), by Nash and Feldman.

     § 4:15, Deductive change vs. convenience terminations

     § 16:16 Separately priced contract items

See also, Person, 01-08, Briefing Papers 1: "Deductive Changes" (2001)'

See also, Nash et al., Administration of Government Contracts, 5th ed., "Deletion of Work Through Termination for Convenience, Changes, or Other Clauses," pp. 1071-72.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2024 at 11:26 AM, KelliB said:

How do you descope for CPFF Clins if the govt no longer needs the requirements?

Three ways, from least to most difficult:

  1. Supplemental agreement to delete the unneeded work.
  2. Deductive change order.
  3. Partial termination for convenience. 

One more referece: "Deletion of Work 𑁋 Change or Partial Termination: Gotta Be This Or That," The Nash & Cibinic Report, August 1988. From the article:

Quote

When work is to be deleted, should a deductive change order be issued, or should the contract be partially terminated for the convenience of the Government? Either method will accomplish the deletion, however, the mechanism chosen can have a significant effect on the amount of the price adjustment. Although it is the Contracting Officer (CO) who makes the initial decision, the contractor is not required to acquiesce if an improper selection is made. Thus, both parties should understand the different pricing rules applicable to each technique and the circumstances which determine the technique to be used.

This was an easy question, and a chance to educate. Wifcon needs a new set of people to answer questions. The Old Bunch is worn out. And my time is running out.

Jamaal? I'm looking at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2024 at 9:06 AM, Retreadfed said:

What do you mean by "descope"?

I’m waiting for enough information to determine what the original poster is wanting to delete.

Im well aware of the differences between the different methods of deleting work . However, I don’t want or need to take the time to write a treatise about or compare each method based upon the current question with no context.

Vern is correct that I’m worn out. I have enough other things to do in lieu of writing an essay on the differences between the methods.

Deleting work can be easy or complicated, depending upon the desired outcome. 

The OP hasn’t bothered to elaborate, so why waste our time? If the OP just wants to know all the differences and details for general knowledge, they can do some relatively easy research. If they have a specific situation, it may be worth advising…

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there may be unrecovered costs to consider, such as fixed and/or semi-variable costs, which may be spread over all CLINs, work or products, including the work to be deleted. Just an example….

Severable, non-severable?  Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joel hoffman You don't need to provide an example. The topic is fully discussed in the references I listed. All the questioner has to do is look them up. Their legal office should have access to them. It is rarely necessary to write "treatises" in response to questions here, unless you just want to. 

But I agree that OP's don't know how to write inquiries, and I sympathize. It's pathetic, and makes you wonder what they're teaching people in college.

I have long planned to write an article about how to ask questions, and have bought and read several books and papers about the topic (there are almost countless numbers of them), and made many notes, but I don't know that I will be able to do it now.

Organizations like NCMA have sold the world on the notion that professionalism is a matter of "certification." But it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Organizations like NCMA have sold the world on the notion that professionalism is a matter of "certification."

Organizations like NCMA
Institutions like the American education system
Families that grew up with an absent parent
Consumerist, instant-gratification-obsessed peers

American culture has sold the world on the notion that professionalism is a matter of "certification."  I know it, and I am a Millennial.  Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."  This does not mean anything other than the imperative to examine oneself.  Preferably in comparison to history.  Start with the 50's and 60's and go back in time from there.

There was once a culture where the best of the best in its education system were the wise.  Not the knowledge obtainers who passed all the open-book tests that were graded "on the curve" - NO, the wise.  The unwise would compete for a spot to spend all of their time being with the wise.  For years.  Then, little by little, the unwise would become wiser.  Then, manifestly, the newly wise would do wise things.

Unless each American makes a point to be precisely countercultural in this way, when I am your age, Vern, I will live in the Age of Unwisdom.  Now imagine the anxiety I feel raising kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Vern, I agree with your second post. When I was providing the answers to the Construction and A-E Contracting discussion area for DAU’s “Ask a Professor” website in the mid 2000’s, I almost always contacted and called the questioner - especially for questions similar to the Original Post here - to learn the context and detail.

I may have provided an answer or a solution over the phone, then followed up and/or consulted with others and/or researched the references. Then I may have called or written back before posting an answer on the website. In the posted answer, I would add context to the question where appropriate with the consent of the questioner.

But I always sought situational context, through personal communications before guessing or assuming what the question was about.

I accepted the offer to answer that discussion area after complaining to DAU about the often ridiculous or otherwise incorrect answers from my predecessor “Professors”.

After I retired, I eventually lost access to my contracting and legal personnel resources within the USACE. I advised DAU to get someone to replace me.

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Voyager said:

There was once a culture where the best of the best in its education system were the wise.  Not the knowledge obtainers who passed all the open-book tests that were graded "on the curve" - NO, the wise.  The unwise would compete for a spot to spend all of their time being with the wise.  For years.  Then, little by little, the unwise would become wiser.  Then, manifestly, the newly wise would do wise things.

 Maybe the most beneficial training method I’ve seen involves mentoring.   But the mentor has to be among the wisest as you put it as well as enjoy teaching and imparting knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, formerfed said:

 Maybe the most beneficial training method I’ve seen involves mentoring.   But the mentor has to be among the wisest as you put it as well as enjoy teaching and imparting knowledge.

As Vern and others have pointed out many times, “mentors” are often a big part of the problem. They keep passing down obsolete policy, guidance, procedures, principles, etc.

This is painfully evident when KO’s and specialists insist that they can’t  or won’t discuss aspects of proposals with offerors that meet the minimum solicitation requirements, even if they are less than desirable and/or contain “weaknesses”.

Some don’t know anything about bargaining for better performance.

Some don’t know how to discuss pricing in competitive acquisitions.

If has been apparent to me that those “mentors” and their predecessors had little or no understanding of the vast differences between the Pre and Post 1996-1997 rewrite of FAR Part 15. It keeps getting passed down to the next generation… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel,  your description is often typical.  That’s because “mentors” are assigned based because management sees no other useful purpose for them.  I’m talking about assigning bright, insightful, and highly knowledgeable people that love to teach and help individuals grow and learn.  The process also is a two way street where the trainee is the right fit.  I’ve seen it done successfully many times.  Off the top of my head I can quickly think of three current SESers that advanced that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern,

I just quickly did this.  It’s not good but I think the idea should come across
 

  • Provide developmental assignments, conduct oversight of work, provide guidance and assistance, and provide educational instruction as needed
  • Allow trainee to assist in and participate with completing own (Mentor’s) advanced work assignments.  Allow trainee to “shadow” mentor in meetings, events, and other activities.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...