CPFF Term Contract and Fulfilling PWS Requirements

My question is, how do I get my point across that the Gov't is setting up the Contractor for a cost overrun as they continue to insist we hire additional (and more expensive) personnel to do this work? They continuously disregard the flaws in the LOE and keep telling me LCATs were not incorporated in the contract so they don't want to hear our excuses that the cost ceiling was set too low. In their mind, if the work requires the higher skilled personnel, then we have to provide them and live with the consequences of a significant cost overrun.

Any help or guidance the group can provide would be greatly appreciated.

You probably want to get your point across without aggravating your customer. Well, you can't.

Here is what you can do: Submit a claim pursuant to the contract Disputes clause, FAR 52.233-1, asking for an interpretation of the contract. State that your interpretation of the contract is that you are not obligated to do work that requires the use of labor categories that are not expressly specified in the contract. (If that is your interpretation.) Request the CO's interpretation of your obligation, whether he concurs with your interpretation or interprets the contract differently. Ask him to state his interpretation iin clear terms. Word your claim carefully to articulate exactly what you think the Government is doing that violates the terms of the contract. Request that the contracting officer give you a final decision within 60 days of his receipt of your claim. This will be a non-monetary claim, so you will not have to certify it, and you will qualify for a decision within 60 days.

If the CO decides against you, you can decide whether to appeal to the cognizant board of contract appeals or to the Federal Circuit. It would not be a bad idea to consult an attorney to help you confirm your interpretation of the contract and state your claim. This is hard ball, but it appears that the CO has not left you with much choice.

If you do this, you will aggravate your customer. If you don't, your customer will continue to trample on your rights as you interpret them. It's just that simple. You should either move decisively and quickly, or decide to continue to suffer. It's your call.

If you get a favorable CO decision or win on appeal, you can them file a claim for additional fee on the grounds that the CO's insistence that you use other labor categories was a constructive change.

This statement is confusing. Please clarify:

Primary reason is, the Govt's LOE excluded several labor categories that are necessary to complete the requirements of the PWS, however the addition of these LCATs is driving our costs up significantly and our burn rate is running very high.

So in the solicitation the CO would not allow use of certain labor cats (higher rates) in proposed solutions. Thus, you proposed solution excluding said labor cats allowing for a lower total cost. The labor cats were not included in the contract, just the LOE in terms of total hours. During performance you utilized these exluded labor cats to accomplish the PWS as those mandated were unable to satisfy the requirements (is this true)? This caused the $ burn to increase? You discussed this issue with the CO and they stated the labor mix was not included in the contract and to get the job done with whatever labor cats and within the cost ceiling.

There are a few ways forward. Obv. you do not want to fail in terms of performance, so a claim (see post #2) seems the most logical way forward.

I assume the government lives with the risk of a cost overrun in this scenario, CPFF? You'll receive the FF up to the ceiling the government will have to authorize and fund above the ceiling if it gets to that...you won't receive fee on overrun. You'd perform IAW the terms of the contract but would have to use higher labor cats and would burn through funds quickly but it is an alternate way forward...just brainstorming.

Yes, everything you stated in your first paragraph is true. It is a CPFF contract. I just feel I should be entitled to an upward adjustment in the FF and not forced to accept a cost overrun.

I agree with you, upward adjustment seems reasonable. The information in the solicitation that mandated the use of certain labor cats that were not translated into the contract would be of importance should the government not process the upward adjustment and you request a claim. Maybe it's not of importance but def. caused the cost ceiling to be reduced to a level not achievable based on the requirements. Hopefully, others with more experience could weigh in on how this solicitation info is handled wrt a claim. Not sure if you want to go this route but you're getting railroaded in my opinion.

Most recently, the KO has threatened to issue us a cure notice if we don't fulfill a particular requirement within the PWS which will require us to bring on a subcontractor who is quite expensive.

That does not make sense if the contract is CPFF LOE Term. What's the requirement?

This is a pretty goofy procurement. A CPFF contract awarded by LPTA and including a PWS. Interesting.

you state that the labor categories were not incorporated into the contract, What is the level of effort that they are holding you to? How was the level of effort determined at the onset?

The requirement is aviation-related. Pilot services, logistical support, maintenance of aircraft.

The LOE is on total hours, not by LCATs. Though the LCAT mix was provided in the RFP and all offerors were required to bid that exact skill mix for the basis of establishing a ceiling.

Our problem now is the USG completely disregards the fact that the LOE was mandated and it set the cost ceiling too low. They are constantly reminding us that we must perform the requirements of the PWS and if it costs more then that's an overrun and we're not entitled to any additional fee.

Most recently, the KO has threatened to issue us a cure notice if we don't fulfill a particular requirement within the PWS which will require us to bring on a subcontractor who is quite expensive. This SubK is the only company with the necessary experience to complete this very specialized work, but their performance will only make our cost control problems even worse.

I'm confused.... was the work that required the subcontractor in the PWS at solicitation? If your company knew that the expensive specialized subcontractor was required for the work in the PWS, why didn't you propose that subcontractor?

Was the mandated LOE mandated in your contract? Or was it provided with the solicitation for evaluation purposes? Did you question the accuracy of the LOE at solicitation?

The additional and more expensive personnel, are they more expensive because you're using different labor categories than the mandated LOE or because the rates for labor categories are higher than what you proposed?

I take back my recommendation to submit a claim. I was hasty.

You have not provided a clear and complete description of the contract, and I have no confidence in your description of your obligation. There are too many peculiar elements to your story. You say "[the government] set the cost ceiling too low," but earlier you said it was an LPTA competition, which indicates that you proposed the estimated cost and fee and won as the acceptable offeror with the lowest price. The government did not "set" the ceiling, it accepted your proposal. Frankly, it sounds like your company did not know what it was doing when it entered into the contract, and now it sounds like your only issue is that you want more fee. I can't be sure from the information that you have provided that you are entitled to more fee.

Save yourself and us a lot of frustration. Hire a lawyer.

That does not make sense if the contract is CPFF LOE Term. What's the requirement?

This is a pretty goofy procurement. A CPFF contract awarded by LPTA and including a PWS. Interesting.

I don't think it's that goofy. If the Government is asking for personnel to augment a Government staff and can only define the work in terms of tasks but do not dictate how the tasks need to completed and don't know how long the tasks will take or how many tasks will be completed, then CPFF sounds right.

LPTA is just the methodology used to find best vale.

It's goofy to enter into a cost-reimbursement contract on the basis of LPTA. Why? Because it encourages what's called "adverse selection" and "moral hazard": the contractor can propose an unrealistically low estimated cost without taking a risk, thereby virtually ensuring an overrun, and the government takes all the cost risk. The contractor may sacrifice some fee, but it might be able to improve its fee in time.

It's legal to use LPTA in a cost-reimbursement procurement, but it does not make sense.

I know I'll get my head chewed off but I disagree. I think people fear LPTA when it is a great tool and should be used more often when a customer can't define what they are willing to pay a premium on. The definition of acceptable or unacceptable should have the same definition whether it's trade off or LPTA.

Unrealistically low prices can happen on trade off. It's all dependent on the offeror's approach. That's what cost realism is used for.

I won't chew you out, even though your thinking is not sound and you essentially made a brief pro-LPTA speech. But what you've alluded to is not LPTA, it's LRCTA (lowest-realistic-cost-technically acceptable), which is very different. LPTA is described in FAR 15.101-2 and does not (in fact, cannot) include adjustment of proposed prices for realism. LRCTA probably falls within the "best value continuum" discussed in FAR 15.101. I think it's legal, if problematic, and it has been discussed among some people, but I don't know of any actual use, except in the award of a task order contract which permitted issuance of fixed-price and cost-reimbursement orders, but I don't understand how that one was supposed to work.. Do you know of any actual use of LPTA or LRCTA with a cost-reimbursement contract?

I see a problem with not including the labor cats in the resultant contract. If the labor cats are proposed an offeror is disqualified eventhough use of excluded labor cats may be necessary to perform the work. If not proposed, then you end up with the situation in post #1.

I see this as a symptom of the lower Agency budgets. Programs are given less funds to work with and are forced to procure the same solution with smaller budgets. Thus, they generate an IGCE based on use of lower level labor cats to ensure the budget is not exceeded and then mandate these labor cats in the solicitation. Post award, the mandated labor mix is not included in the contract, the cost ceiling is unachievably low, and the awardee must figure out how to make it work. The total hours are what remain. It's a trap and I wouldn't propose.

Why can't it? Where does LPTA say it can't be used for cost type contracts? Price is defined in FAR 15.4. “Price” means cost plus any fee or profit applicable to the contract type. Additionally,

15.101-2(a) says "...technically acceptable proposal with the lowest EVALUATED price" and ( also says "evaluated" it doesn't say proposed price, it says evaluated which assumes it would allow for adjustments?

And yes, I know of many LPTA cost-reimbursement contracts that are very successful. And has been the practiced for the last 4 years.

FAR does not say that LPTA can't be used for cost-type contracts, and I did not say that it does. See my Post # 12. What I said was that LPTA cannot include adjustment of price for realism. See FAR 15.404-1(d)(3), which, the definition in FAR 15.401 notwithstanding, makes a distinction between cost and price. And that's why I call what you're talking about LRCTA. It's always helpful to give different species different names.

Look, Steward, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I think using LPTA or even LRCTA with cost-reimbursement contracts is STUPID for what I think are obvious reasons. If you don't, you don't. I don't care.

Now, if you (or anyone else) want to provide me with details of the "many" successful LPTA-awarded cost-reimbursement contracts, I'd be very interested. Otherwise, you have made an unsupported assertion and I'll ignore it.

I appreciate the discussion and differing opinions and points of view. However, 15.404-1(d)(3) is not discussing cost type contracts and it's not about LPTA. It's about cost realism on fixed-price contracts and not adjusting those types, which makes sense.

Steward,

I need to correct you on one point. The definition of "price" at FAR 15.401 is preceded by "As used in this subpart--". Thus, that definition only has that meaning when used in FAR subpart 15.4. The definition is not applicable to the word "price" as it is used at FAR 15.101-2( a ).

Thanks, Don. I should have caught that.

Steward:

I am not saying that you cannot use "LPTA" for cost-reimbursement acquisitions. I have already said that you can. My point is that you should not call it "LPTA" but "LRCTA" in order to be clear about what you're doing. Do you really want to spend time arguing about that? Really?

The bigger point is that to award a cost-reimbursement contract based on the lowest cost proposed, adjusted for realism, only encourages unrealistically low proposed estimated costs. I don't think you will find many people, other than yourself, who will disagree with that proposition. Is the proposition true? I have no data to prove that it is. I say only that it makes a certain amount of sense.

Now, are you going to tell me about those "many" successful LPTA cost-reimbursement procurements or not? Let's just get that on the table. Because if you have good data, you might change my mind. If you have strong beliefs, prove your point.

Don, What other definition of price do you suggest we use?

Vern,

I don't disagree with you that awarding a cost-reimbursement contract based on lowest cost proposed can encourage unrealistically low prices. But that is why the customer has to set their minimums appropriately and why you have to complete a through cost-realism analysis.

For examples, you should look at the Army Contracting Command.

FAR 1.108(a) says that when there is no applicable official definition you are to use a common dictionary definition. But, realistically, the acquisition community generally uses the word price to refer to the amount charged for a deliverable under a fixed-price contract. Cost is a dollar amount incurred or estimates to be incurred for labor, capital, or expenses. Thus, fixed-price, estimated cost, ceiling price, target cost and target price, etc. But that's not really worth discussing in the context of what we're talking about.

You could not legally award a cost-reimbursement contract based on lowest proposed cost. That would violate FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) and GAO case law. You would have to award it based on lowest realistic cost (hence, LRCTA). Either way, I think you would be encouraging unrealistically low cost estimates. It's a matter of asymmetric information, adverse selection, and moral hazard.

I'll look around for some examples. "Army Contracting Command" is pretty non-specific.

Take care.

I am aware that ACC has been successfully using LPTA Cost reimbursement for years.

How does awarding based on lowest price violate case law or 15.404-1(d)(2)?

Here's an example of LPTA CPFF term where cost realism was challenged and denied:

http://www.gao.gov/products/B-409147,B-409147.2

What does case law have to do with this? I'm talking about professional judgement. Stupid is not illegal. And what do you mean by "successfully"?

Why do you keep coming back to legality? That seems to be your point: It's legal, so we should do it. You said enough when you wrote: "I don't disagree with you that awarding a cost-reimbursement contract based on lowest cost proposed can encourage unrealistically low prices." That's my point.

Since you like to cite FAR, how about this: FAR 16.301-2:

(a) The contracting officer shall use cost-reimbursement contracts only when—(1) Circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract (see 7.105); or (2) Uncertainties involved in contract performance do not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient accuracy to use any type of fixed-price contract.

So,,, you're going to award on the basis of the lowest "realistic" cost estimate and take all the risk?

​Now, if the government is good at determining cost realism, why do so many cost-reimbursement contracts overrun? Why does it happen? (And by the way, if the contractor estimates the cost at $5,000,000, and the government determines the realistic cost to be $6,000,000, which amount do you put on the contract?)

So, here's the concept, I guess: We're going to take all the cost risk, and even though we can't define requirements or can't be sure what it's going to cost, and overruns are bad for budgets and reputations, we're going to award on the basis of the lowest "realistic" cost estimate, which is clearly designed to encourage offerors to submit the lowest estimate they think they can get away with since we're taking all the cost risk. Even though we don't know enough to estimate with enough accuracy to permit fixed-price contracting and probably don't have as much information about cost as the offerors.

Brilliant. But, then again, since we're likely to have an overrun any way, what difference does it make? LPTA is simpler and faster than best value. If I have learned anything over the course of my career, it's that we work in an increasingly unlearned and unprincipled profession. We'll do anything for administrative convenience.

Give us some guidance. Tell us, what are your criteria for using LPTA to award a cost-reimbursement contract? When does it make sense?

I'm questioning case law because you said LPTA CPFF violates case law in your posts. Where does it violate case law?

By successful, I mean without sustained protests, without cost overruns, with successful performance and satisfied customers, to name a few.

Because it's a cost type contract, we automatically take on risk. We eliminate that risk by completing a thorough cost realism analysis and closely administering the contractors to target costs. This is not a contract type that is chosen for convenience, quite the opposite. Nothing about cost contracts is an administrative convenience but maybe that's why these other people have the overruns you're mentioning and we haven't had them.

LPTA is a form of best value per the FAR.

Our criteria for LPTA is when the customer is not willing to pay a premium above what they define as acceptable which would be the point at which we begin trading off if were a best value tradeoff.

I don't want to confuse source selection procedures with contract type.

The key in this arguement is ensuring the cost realism is done correctly and that the Government manages the contractor to the proposed target costs post award. The argument isn't if you can or can't do LPTA on a cost-reimbursement because you can and it does work.

You're assuming that these cost overruns are because of LPTA. I've never had one overrun. If you can provide fact as to why LPTA cost reimbursement does not work or actually results in overruns more than tradeoff, I'd be glad to change my mind. For now, I'll go off the facts I know and the extensive experience I have.

I'm questioning case law because you said LPTA CPFF violates case law in your posts. Where does it violate case law?

Quote me.

By successful, I mean without sustained protests, without cost overruns, with successful performance and satisfied customers, to name a few.

Give us the name of the awarding agency and the contract number for a CR contract awarded by LPTA that is completed and did not overrun.

You're assuming that these cost overruns are because of LPTA.

Quote me. I make no such assumption and I have no personal knowledge of a single CR contract awarded based on LPTA. I know that overruns happen, but why they happen has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

All of the above are distractions and have no bearing on the issue. That fact that you bring them up demonstrates the weakness of your argument. Actually, the nonexistence of an argument. You started out with an interesting, if unorthodox, proposition, but now you're descending into silliness. If you keep it up, I'll quit talking with you. It's up to you.

If you can provide fact as to why LPTA cost reimbursement does not work or actually results in overruns more than tradeoff.

I can't provide facts, and I haven't said that I have facts, because in 40+ years in contracting I have had no experience with CR contracts awarded by LPTA and don't know of any CR contracts awarded by LPTA. I did cost-reimbursement contracts for the Air Force and the Department of Energy. I asked around, and none of the friends I have talked to have had such experience either, although they have extensive experience with CR contracts in various agencies. My argument that to award a CR contract by LPTA is foolish is based entirely on doctrine, logic, theory, and judgement.

For now, I'll go off the facts I know and the extensive experience I have.

Well, I'm certainly open to being persuaded by facts. So tell us the facts about your extensive experience with CR contracts awarded by LPTA. Give us the contract numbers, award dates, the item or service acquired, the initial estimated cost, the realistic cost, and, if completed, the final cost. With extensive experience, surely you can provide us that, or some of that, for at least one contract. Even if you haven't worked one yourself, give us that facts about one you know about.

I don't mind debating about this with you based on doctrine, logic, theory, or judgement, which is all I've got, but if you're going to assert actual experience and facts, then you'll have to show them to me. If you can't, or won't, do that, then I'll have to assume that what you said about facts and extensive experience is just b.s. and that continued discussion with you is a waste of my time. Fair enough? I won't debate the law with you, because I don't think law is an issue. I've been very clear about that.

By the way, the protest decision to which you provided a link in Post # 23 concerned a task order competition. Task order competitions are not subject to the source selection rules in FAR Part 15 and are not relevant to this discussion. Please be more careful in the future before asking me to read something. And no more cases, please.

I'm not addressing the legality of anything here, just floating a trail ballon. The cost realism analysis seems like a thin reed which is required to support a whole lot of weight.

• They require a lot of knowledge from the Project Management side as to exactly how the Contractor will perform the work;
• They are very subjective; and
• Are therefore susceptible to pressure from within and without the contracting office; and
• They are performed for requirements which, by their nature, are difficult to get a handle on (hence the CPFF contract type).

I'm sure there are many good cost realism analyses floating around, just worrying they are outnumbered by the bad ones. *In particular* Steward's are probably quite good since he has a track record of avoiding overruns, but the tool *in general* doesn't fill me with confidence about mitigating the moral hazard issues Vern raises.

Also, sorry for the premature posting- still getting used to the forum. Thanks!

My argument that to award a CR contract by LPTA is foolish is based entirely on doctrine, logic, theory, and judgement.

I don't mind debating about this with you based on doctrine, logic, theory, or judgement, which is all I've got, but if you're going to assert actual experience and facts, then you'll have to show them to me. If you can't, or won't, do that, then I'll have to assume that what you said about facts and extensive experience is just b.s. and that continued discussion with you is a waste of my time. Fair enough? I won't debate the law with you, because I don't think law is an issue. I've been very clear about that.

By the way, the protest decision to which you provided a link in Post # 23 concerned a task order competition. Task order competitions are not subject to the source selection rules in FAR Part 15 and are not relevant to this discussion. Please be more careful in the future before asking me to read something. And no more cases, please.

Vern,

here are some facts based upon my experience with CR actions and some comparisons to actions being awarded as a trade off, or utilizing T&M/LH/FFP actions.

1. Comparison between previously competed actions one T&M, recompeted as a CPFF/LPTA netted in a savings to the Gov't of approximately 18%.

2. Competition for an CR action awarded trade off, resulted in a 26% premium being paid.

Both of these actions were for support, or " butts in seats" . Nothing special, just provide personnel to support OCO actions in areas of operations.

In the first case the COR had good oversight as to what was happening and monitoring what they were doing. The other case, well, lets just say the incumbent won.

So to make a blanket statement that it is foolish to award a CR action on LPTA is questionable. Without all of the facts and rationale why something is done, it appears that you are saying don't do it as we have not done it that way in the past. If that is what you are saying, then we are doing nothing but contracting by checking the box. I believe that there are some KO's that will make decisions based upon the situations and infomration available rather than by "that is the way we always do it"

There are reasons that actions are done that way and they can be successful if the KO and the COR are involved. If they sit back and ignore, yes you can have cost overruns quite easily.

As to the original post, it was never really explained why there were cost overruns.

Did the Government underestimate the effort?

Did the contractor decide to pay higher rates than what was proposed? ( this happens quite a bit, and if the COR/KO are not monitoring spend reports, then this will happen)

Did the contrator pay signing bonuses that were not part of their proposal?

From what it appears the contractor was given potentially a pws, with historical labor hours and categories to bid to, and they bid to those. so not really sure why they are in an overrun status. Not enough information given.

airborne373:

First, I would never say that you should not do something because it has not been done before. You can't know what I've written over the past 25 years if you think that. I am generally thought in some circles to be a radical. No one who has read my work has ever thought me to be a conservative. I am a Tom Paine in matters of contracting, not an Edmund Burke.

Okay, as to your examples: Are you stating the savings based on final contract costs or award amounts? Time adjusted? Only final, time adjusted contract costs provide valid data. Award amounts are useless in that regard.

Also, have you made an analysis of the work done under each contract? Was it the same, or even comparable in detail? Because if you haven't or if it wasn't, then again I must say that your comparisons are not valid.

Statements of savings based on unanalyzed percentages (18%, 25%) are worse than useless.

In any case, I would expect a CPFF contract to be less costly upon completion than a T&M contract for the same work, for reasons I explained in my essay about T&M contracts posted at Wifcon. I would not expect that award of the CPFF contract based on LPTA to have had anything to do with it. T&M contracts provide contractors with a positive incentive to be inefficient. CPFF contracts do not.

I will stick with my "blanket statement" that the award of CR contracts based on LPTA is foolish, even stupid, which is a word I do not use often or lightly.

I should add this from the memo Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, issued by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense -- Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, dated March 4, 2011, Appendix A, "Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Selection Process", para. A.5, "Price":

The LPTA procedure is applied to known, firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate price competition.

in regards to analysis over time, yes it was done over time. re-compete of a previous action, while not done with final audited costs, the analysis was done with invoiced amounts.

I guess we will agree to disagree on your blanket statement.

I have read your articles over the past 5 years, and into several of your archives, and for the most part I agree with you.

But i do take exception to your "blanket statement". In some situations yes, and in the right situation it is the correct and best choice.

CPFF term contracts/actions awarded on a trade off can be just as foolish and stupid in my opinion. (in the right situation)

I will also add that I searched the GAO database and found only one reference to LPTA being used in connection with CPFF, and that was the protest cited by Steward, which was for award of a CPFF task order by the Department of the Army. See CACI Technologies, Inc., GAO Dec. B-409147, 2014 CPD ¶ 44. Task order selections are not governed by the FAR source selection rules. The Court of Federal Claims database included no instance of an acquisition in which a CR contract was to be awarded by LPTA.

I now know of one case of an RFP being issued to award a CFPP contract by LPTA, by the Air Force in 2011. I called the contracting office and they were not aware of it. It was below the dollar value that required review by the chief of the contracting office. They did not know off hand whether the contract was actually awarded pursuant to LPTA, and were shocked to learn that their office had issued such an RFP, because that would have been "stupid".

interesting the selection you quoted from was from A5 which is price.

however there are other sections that discuss LPTA in the guide.

1.2 Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process (see FAR
15.101-2). The LPTA process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from
selection of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

and

A. 1 The LPTA process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the
technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. LPTAs may be used in
situations where the Government would not realize any value from a proposal exceeding the
Government’s minimum technical or performance requirements, often for acquisitions of
commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly defined and expected to be
low risk. The LPTA process does not permit tradeoffs between price and non- price factors.

and from A. 5

the PCO may conduct a cost analysis to support the determination of
whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

airborne373:

The LPTA appendix speaks for itself. The other statements are general and I'm not sure why you refer to them. In any case, I just pointed out the policy. Have you spoken with anyone at DPAP about using LPTA for CR acquisitions?

I'm sticking with my blanket statement, and unless you have better data than you have presented, you have said nothing that changes my mind.

However, I would be interested in your view of what the "right situation" would be in which to award a CR contract via LPTA, assuming that the use of CR is appropriate pursuant to FAR 16.301-2. How would you argue for that in front of a skeptical source selection authority? That would be your best chance to change my mind.

I will also add that I searched the GAO database and found only one reference to LPTA being used in connection with CPFF, and that was the protest cited by Steward, which was for award of a CPFF task order by the Department of the Army. See CACI Technologies, Inc., GAO Dec. B-409147, 2014 CPD ¶ 44. Task order selections are not governed by the FAR source selection rules. The Court of Federal Claims database included no instance of an acquisition in which a CR contract was to be awarded by LPTA.

I now know of one case of an RFP being issued to award a CFPP contract by LPTA, by the Air Force in 2011. I called the contracting office and they were not aware of it. It was below the dollar value that required review by the chief of the contracting office. They did not know off hand whether the contract was actually awarded pursuant to LPTA, and were shocked to learn that their office had issued such an RFP, because that would have been "stupid".

Those were protests. That alone does not mean that there were no awards of contracts done by LPTA for a CR action. I fail to see the purpose of that note.

as to the AF, you have provided anecdotal information. and they don't even know the status of it, so again I fail to see the purpose.

I have conceded that we will agree to disagree, as I am sure that in hindsight, I will do many things that are considered foolish and or stupid by others, just am I am sure that you have done the same.

Me do something stupid? Perish the thought.

I pointed out the protests just as a matter of info. I don't think they prove anything. (Did I say they did?) Same for the USAF procurement. I had said earlier that I did not know of an instance. Now I do. I don't think that proves anything, either. (Did I say it did?)

I will wait for your post telling us in what situations you think LPTA for CR would be appropriate. I am open to persuasion. So far you have not made an argument, you've just said that maybe it would work and I should not reject it out of hand. OK, convince me. Or are you just going back and forth with me because you think somebody ought to?

airborne373:

The LPTA appendix speaks for itself. The other statements are general and I'm not sure why you refer to them. In any case, I just pointed out the policy. Have you spoken with anyone at DPAP about using LPTA for CR acquisitions?

I'm sticking with my blanket statement, and unless you have better data than you have presented, you have said nothing that changes my mind.

However, I would be interested in your view of what the "right situation" would be in which to award a CR contract via LPTA, assuming that the use of CR is appropriate pursuant to FAR 16.301-2. How would you argue for that in front of a skeptical source selection authority? That would be your best chance to change my mind.

Vern,

yes the appendix speaks for itself, and you have to read it in total and not cherry pick what you want to read. You chose one section related to price. If you re-read section A.1 of the guide its states "often for acquisitions of commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly defined and expected to be low risk."

As to CR and LPTA, my actions that have been done are in excess of $100M and I have determined that the provisions at 16.301-2 (a) are applicable.

but then again, I am in the TO arena, so I fall under 16.505 not 15.3. ( and I never stated that I did stand alone)

and FWIW, the OP is more than likely under a TO rather than a stand alone contract.

Would you use a CR contract for services and supplies that are clearly defined and expected to be low risk?

So you have selected contractors for CR task orders using LPTA? Okay, why? What was the situation that made it appropriate? Come on! Quit with just bickering. Make a case like a pro! You're airborne!

I don't know what you mean by "the OP". To me, OP means outpost or observation post. Sort me out on that.

If the OP was an observation post, I would be calling for fire for effect. LOL (OP original poster)

While i enjoy bickering to bicker, i will reply with a situation where i think it is appropriate. so dont think i am avoiding it.

unfortunately, I have to go off to a a meeting to have discussions as to why there are cost overruns.

and before you get the opportunity to state it, i did have a few landings where my cranial housing group became a point of contact.

Well, me too on the cranial housing group thing. Serious concussion on my second blast at Benning. Poor PLF. Didn't say anything, because I was too close to graduating and was not going to recycle under any circumstances. Funny how hitting your head makes you sick to the stomach.

Quote me.

You could not legally award a cost-reimbursement contract based on lowest proposed cost. That would violate FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) and GAO case law.

Right here. ^

But Vern, it's clear we are just not going to agree! I'm not sure why a task order that was awarded using LPTA on a CR contract type is not applicable to this debate? What exactly is the difference?

16.5 only precludes 15.3 and we are not debating 15.3. I don't see how that case does not apply. Many of us in the business today are well aware that the same concepts of FAR Part 15 are used in these large MACs that have tens to hundreds of contractors and compete million dollar specialized services and supplies not very differently than a "formal" FAR Part 15.

Your posts appear pro-tradeoff and I'm not going to instruct any customer of mine to pay a premium or as you allude to "do something more difficult than LPTA" if they find no value above what they define as the minimum acceptable criteria.

I don't see how, eitherway, LPTA or tradeoff eliminates the risk of cost overrun. Reduction of risk comes though cost realism based on an offerors unique approach and thoroughly managing and administrating the contract post award to target costs. The Government is not obligated to pay overruns.

LPTA on CR works. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Don't knock it till you try it?"

No facts. More regulations. And my quote is correct.

You're wasting my time. I don't believe that you have "extensive experience" using LPTA to award CR contracts. I'm done with you. Talk to the hand.

Not much to add here, but: what the customer wants and what the customer needs- from contracting- are very often different. Delivering news they do not want to here but need to here is one of the toughest parts of this field.