Labor Category Changes on existing T&M/LH contracts - Permission or Notification

pconner, I wondering -- based on your readings so far, what are you thinking?  Are you thinking that permission probably--

• (A) is required; or
• (B) is not required?

Why?

In addition to reading the FAR, would you consider reading the text of the contract(s) you are wondering about?  After all, it seems to me that it is the contract text that matters.  Might it be possible that one T&M/LH contract might have a different answer than another T&M/LH contract?

To ji's point maybe something like a key personnel requirement of the contact?

ji20874 said:

pconner, I wondering -- based on your readings so far, what are you thinking?  Are you thinking that permission probably--

• (A) is required; or
• (B) is not required?

 

Why?

In addition to reading the FAR, would you consider reading the text of the contract(s) you are wondering about?  After all, it seems to me that it is the contract text that matters.  Might it be possible that one T&M/LH contract might have a different answer than another T&M/LH contract?

My thinking is that it "is not required" but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. 

I've read the contract(s) and there is no mention of requiring us to inform or request permission of either the CO or COR for us to change labor categories. I've sent notices to both CORs and COs to provide situational awareness and haven't had any pushback other than ensuring it won't impact the cost/price to the contract.

Unclear what type of substitution you are describing. Please clarify. Are you changing a person from one labor category to another?  Or are you changing the labor category? Or something else? As mentioned, would this be a matter of substituting identified key personnel? 

It would seem that the contract or an order would identify the applicable labor categories. Substituting another labor category would appear to me to be a change, requiring the governments agreement or approval.

In the scenario you presented, it appears that you are saying that there are multiple labor categories in the contract but not identified in an order. To substitute another labor category and/or different price would appear to be a change.

I agree that the contract language matters

But I don’t understand what type of substitution you are asking about….

C Culham said:

To ji's point maybe something like a key personnel requirement of the contact?

Standard key personnel language in most of our contracts which we follow to the letter prior to changing them.  Most of the LCATs we are changing are non-key personnel.

I've had COR training 2x (and still have the manuals and notes) and could not find any reference to this topic in those either.

So, no specific language you know of that dictates?

joel hoffman said:

Unclear what type of substitution you are describing. Please clarify. Are you changing a person from one labor category to another?  Or are you changing the labor category? Or something else? As mentioned, would this be a matter of substituting identified key personnel? 

It would seem that the contract or an order would identify the applicable labor categories. Substituting another labor category would appear to me to be a change, requiring the governments agreement or approval.

In the scenario you presented, it appears that you are saying that there are multiple labor categories in the contract but not identified in an order. To substitute another labor category and/or different price would appear to be a change.

I agree that the contract language matters

But I don’t understand what type of substitution you are asking about….

We have all of the labor categories included in the contract(s) and aren't adding more, we are changing a person from one labor category to another existing LCAT. i.e., Researcher to Sr. Researcher. The person(s) meets the necessary qualifications to be elevated to the next level.

pconner said:

So no specific language you know of that dictates?

No with regard to the FAR.  Good for you on your indicated efforts of communicating with CO/COR.

C Culham said:

No with regard to the FAR.  Good for you on your indicated efforts of communicating with CO/COR.

Of course.  I think it's important to keep them informed so they aren't shocked by an increase in a labor rate.  They might think I'm a nuisance, but they can't say they weren't informed. Thanks everyone for your assistance, very helpful.

pconner said:

My thinking is that it "is not required" but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. 

I've read the contract(s) and there is no mention of requiring us to inform or request permission of either the CO or COR for us to change labor categories. I've sent notices to both CORs and COs to provide situational awareness and haven't had any pushback other than ensuring it won't impact the cost/price to the contract.

Right on...

The contract language controls the duties/responsibilities/rights of the parties.

here_2_help said:

The contract language controls the duties/responsibilities/rights of the parties.

Yes.  Exactly.  It’s not a FAR issue per se where researching the FAR provides the answer.   But if it surfaces as a controversy involving contract language, it may be found in disputes and post-award decisions.  I came up nothing with a quick search.  So as long as the CO/COR are comfortable, the contractor is good to go

I understand that this change will not change the price ceiling, but will it increase the burn rate? i.e., will the ceiling get reached faster? Did the Task Order have 2 senior researchers and now it has 3? 

This may be an issue.