IDIQ with End Item Deliverable and Incremental Funding

Started by summerlady51 · Mar 25, 2014 · 6 replies

  1. s

    summerlady51

    Mar 25, 2014 · 12y ago

    Original post

    I really need some help. The convention typically used when purchasing an end item with Procurement funds is that the end item is fully funding at the time the contract is awarded. Now I find out that at least two, possibly more, contracts have been awarded using Procurement funds but they were funded incrementally. They are cost plus fixed fee contracts. I'm not that experienced with contracting but I'm fairly experienced with appropriation law. Is there some clause or concept in the contracting world that allows purchase of an end item - say an airplane - but allows it to be built with incremental funding? The Period of Performance covers more than 1 year. And the funds appear to make it onto the contractual vehicle before the end of the first year of the appropriation life. There is a termination clause that gives the government an out but we would end up with expenditures with no final product. So Contractually we might be just fine but we would certainly be in violation of the spirit of the Congressional intent.

    Is there a way that this works contractually? If so, what DFARS/FAR reference supports it?

  2. p

    policyguy

    Mar 25, 2014 · 12y ago

    I would first recommend you check DoD 7000.14-R Financial Management Regulation Volume 2A, Chapter 1, paragraph 010202 that provides exceptions to full funding of procurement programs. The most recent edition I could find was from October 2008 that made changes in this area and may be of help to you. Not sure if there is a more recent edition but again I would check the DOD FMR first.

  3. G

    Guest Vern Edwards

    Mar 25, 2014 · 12y ago

    The issue is not contractual, and the approach to funding acquisitions of capital assets is not for contracting offices to decide. It is a matter of budgeting and appropriations policy. The topic is not covered in acquisition regulations.

    For background, see GAO, Incremental Funding of Capital Asset Acquisitions, Feb. 26, 2001. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-432R

    See also, CRS, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy -- Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, June 15, 2007. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31404.pdf

    When using 3010 funds, the policy is usually full funding. See DOD 7000.14-R, V. 2, para. 010202, which includes a discussion of exceptions.

  4. s

    summerlady51

    Mar 25, 2014 · 12y ago

    Thanks Vern, they are apparently using something called a local clause and I'm concerned. What they are doing might be okay with RDT&E funds but not with OPN. I've read most of what you recommended but I'm going to go read the rest. It's one of those things you find by accident and someone says "we've always done it that way" when you ask. If you are the responsible financial policy person, that phrase is like nails on a chalkboard. Should I let you know what I find for future inquiries?

  5. G

    Guest Vern Edwards

    Mar 25, 2014 · 12y ago

    No need to let me know.

    The big risks are that funds are not obligated within the available obligation period or that there is a violation of the bona fide needs rule.

  6. N

    Navy_Contracting_4

    Mar 25, 2014 · 12y ago

    DOD 7000.14-R, Vol. 2, para. 010202, says, in pertinent part:

    "*010202. Full Funding of Procurement Programs

    A. General. A budgeting rule that requires the total estimated cost of a,
    military useable end item, be funded in the fiscal year in which the item is procured. Under the
    full funding policy, the entire procurement cost of a weapon or piece of military equipment is to
    be funded in the year in which the item is budgeted. An end item budgeted in a fiscal year
    cannot depend upon a future years funding to complete the procurement. Regulations governing
    the full funding policy are found in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 and
    DoD Directive 7000.14-R

    1. The full funding policy is intended to prevent the use of
    incremental funding, under which the cost of a weapon system is divided into two or more
    annual portions or increments. Thus, full funding provides disciplined approach for program
    managers to execute their programs within cost and available funding.

    2. There are two general exceptions to the full funding policy: one
    permits the use of Advance Procurement (AP) funding for components or parts of an item that
    have long production lead times; the other permits advance procurement funding for economic
    order quantity (EOQ) procurement, which normally occurs in programs that have been approved
    for multiyear procurements (MYP). Advance Procurement funding is used routinely and

    extensively in the procurement of components for major end items due to manufacturing and
    production lead times. The use of MYP has to be approved by the Congress on a program-by-

    program basis. Congressional approval permits DoD to use a single contract to procure multiple

    copies of a given item that are scheduled to be procured across a series of years. MYP
    arrangements are governed by 10 USC 2306( B). EOQ procurement involves procuring multiple

    copies of a key component of a weapon covered by an MYP at the start of the MYP period in
    order to achieve significantly reduced costs on that component.

    B. Policy for Full Funding. The total estimated cost of a complete, military
    useable end item or construction project must be fully funded in the year it is procured. There
    are 2 basic policies concerning full funding.

    1. To provide funds in the budget for the total estimated cost of a
    complete, military usable end item to document the dimensions and cost of a program.

    2. Exceptions to this policy are advance procurement for long lead-

    time items and advance economic order quantity (EOQ) procurement. EOQ may be used only
    in connection with multiyear procurements. Both efforts must be identified in an Exhibit P-10,
    Advance Procurement, for the Budget Estimate Submission and the President’s Budget request.

    ..."

  7. s

    summerlady51

    Mar 27, 2014 · 12y ago

    Thanks to all. I believe that I'm wading in an area where I know the appropriations law and I know the contracts law, but when nothing violates law but it does violate policy, you have folks thumbing their nose at it just because it doesn't violate law. I've been around 30+ years and ususally these folks have to see a disaster before they are believers. So I'll go on record as "financial policy" that I object to them basically thumbing their nose at Congress. All of the GAO Reports on this say that to do so is a really, really stupid idea. Having witnessed "the disaster" more than once in my career, I know it won't take long after the fact before they behave. I just don't accept "we've always done it that way" gracefully. Usually that phrase means you don't know why you "do it that way".

Sign in or sign up to post a reply.