Required Elements of T&M/LH Contract or Order

Just now, Rachel_CO said:

Is this an acceptable practice considering the fact that the master contract includes the labor categories, rates, and overall estimated LOE and the TO includes a ceiling price? Or, should the TO instrument include, at a minimum, the labor categories, labor rates, and a total quantity of hours for performance of the services identified in the TO SOW?

My thoughts -

IDIQ Multiple Award where Fair Opportunity is used to select the contractor?   In general either approach is acceptable as to the award approach but if you are asking contractors to give a proposal that is used for fair opportunity selection it is interesting that the contractors proposal on labor categories and hours as proposed is not converted into the CLIN's for the TO.  Posed another way if selection under fair opportunity does not consider the labor mix and hours and selection is based on other stuff why even ask for the mix and hours in the proposal?  If mix and hours is used as evaluation (proposed price of TO) it would seem prudent to list them in the CLIN.  I say this as it would seem that if the mix and hours are evaluated the government is agreeing to the mix and hours approach.  Overall for me it boils down to how the mix and hours are used to evaluate for award.  By example if you are just worried about the "ceiling price" when evaluating for award just ask contractors how much they are willing to do the work for - total price - and then award as your office is currently doing.

IDIQ single award, I am back to my view that either approach works.

FAR references are guidance so I would not be too hung up on them.   My concern on payment would be that it might take a little extra effort to view and concur on an invoice when the labor mix and hours with rates are not on the TO.  Just takes looking at the parent IDIQ so not a big deal.    But what goes along with this is the expectation thing again.  Simplified example.   Contractor proposes 200 hours of a specialist (higher rate) and 50 hours of a technician (lower rate) to do the work.   Award is at ceiling price only.   When the invoice comes in contractor bills for 275 hours of technician and 75 hours of specialist.  Did the government get what they bargained for?  More importantly for post work completion evaluation by customer for the future maybe the completed work expectations could be viewed differently for future contracts.   In other words why do you need specialists on the example contract when techs can get it done.

Rachel_CO said:

Instead, the TO instrument includes the required ceiling price and simply states that all of the master contract labor categories and rates are included and may be used for the performance of the TO (the master contract includes a schedule of labor categories and rates for each year of performance). The COs utilizing this method argue that it provides much more flexibility for the contractor to use its desired skill mix to accomplish the TO SOW requirements.

The COs utilizing this method are correct.  See FAR 16.601(c)(2) and (d)(2).

Rachel_CO said:

Or, should the TO instrument include, at a minimum, the labor categories, labor rates, and a total quantity of hours for performance of the services identified in the TO SOW?

The parent or master contract has the labor categories and the hourly rates, and you already said the TO incorporates those by reference.  That is fine.  It seems you also want the TO to include the total quantity of hours for performance -- you err in wanting that -- if you can make this decision, then make it FFP (or FP-LOE).  The reason for T&M is because you cannot determine the total quantity of hours, right?

C Culham said:

FAR references are guidance so I would not be too hung up on them.

@C CulhamWhich FAR references are merely "guidance"? You didn't cite any. Please be specific.

C Culham said:

My thoughts -

IDIQ Multiple Award where Fair Opportunity is used to select the contractor?   In general either approach is acceptable as to the award approach but if you are asking contractors to give a proposal that is used for fair opportunity selection it is interesting that the contractors proposal on labor categories and hours as proposed is not converted into the CLIN's for the TO.  Posed another way if selection under fair opportunity does not consider the labor mix and hours and selection is based on other stuff why even ask for the mix and hours in the proposal?  If mix and hours is used as evaluation (proposed price of TO) it would seem prudent to list them in the CLIN.  I say this as it would seem that if the mix and hours are evaluated the government is agreeing to the mix and hours approach.  Overall for me it boils down to how the mix and hours are used to evaluate for award.  By example if you are just worried about the "ceiling price" when evaluating for award just ask contractors how much they are willing to do the work for - total price - and then award as your office is currently doing.

IDIQ single award, I am back to my view that either approach works.

FAR references are guidance so I would not be too hung up on them.   My concern on payment would be that it might take a little extra effort to view and concur on an invoice when the labor mix and hours with rates are not on the TO.  Just takes looking at the parent IDIQ so not a big deal.    But what goes along with this is the expectation thing again.  Simplified example.   Contractor proposes 200 hours of a specialist (higher rate) and 50 hours of a technician (lower rate) to do the work.   Award is at ceiling price only.   When the invoice comes in contractor bills for 275 hours of technician and 75 hours of specialist.  Did the government get what they bargained for?  More importantly for post work completion evaluation by customer for the future maybe the completed work expectations could be viewed differently for future contracts.   In other words why do you need specialists on the example contract when techs can get it done.

@C CulhamThanks for your reply.  The contract is a single-award IDIQ.

Vern Edwards said:

@C CulhamWhich FAR references are merely "guidance"? You didn't cite any. Please be specific.

My statement was with regard to Rachel_CO FAR references.

Rachel_CO said:

FAR 16.505(7) requires that orders placed under IDIQ contracts contain "quantity and unit price".

The requirement for a "unit price" doesn't apply to T&M/LH. See FAR 4.1005-2(c)(3).

Rachel_CO said:

As a CO myself, I am struggling to understand how a TO can be considered a T&M or LH type if the TO instrument does not include any of these basic elements (i.e., labor categories, labor rates, or a total quantity of hours to be delivered during TO performance).

Do you think that "hour" is the unit of delivery under a T&M/LH contract?

Rachel, 

Have you read the FAR citations I provided earlier?  You should.  Please do, and let me know if you see "total quantity of hours to be delivered."

The Time-and-Materials contract and the Labor-Hour contract are the two most misunderstood and misused contract types.

C Culham said:

My statement was with regard to Rachel_CO FAR references.

One of her references was to FAR 16.505(b)(7), which says that a T&M order "must" include certain things. Another was to FAR 52.232-7, a contract clause.

C Culham said:

FAR references are guidance so I would not be too hung up on them.

Really? I would be hung up about them. Some things in FAR have the force and effect of law.

Some of the people reading Wifcon posts take them literally and do not know better. We have to be careful in what we say. That applies to me, as well.

Vern Edwards said:

The Time-and-Materials contract and the Labor-Hour contract are the two most misunderstood and misused contract types.

Could be that the IDIQ is the most misunderstood and misused!

And not to be reasoned as an exception to what has been stated so far, just clarification that I felt compelled to offer.

Paraphrased specific to this thread the single award IDIQ is providing for services specified as labor categories, rates, and overall estimated LOE.  Not stated is how the associated TO can be placed - FFP, TM/LH, Cost - but it appears that at least TM/LH is allowed by the master IDIQ.   To illustrate it sounds like, by example, the contract is for say janitorial services.  It further sounds like the master IDIQ is stating the services of janitors, as a labor category(s) are priced at specific rates as opposed to the services of clean a toilet at a specific job rate.  ( I will admit I do not get the LOE reference in the original post without seeing the master.)  The IDIQ orders nothing (52.216-21) hopefully in the master contract) but establishes the unilateral right of the government to order the janitor services at the hourly rates specified to a stated maximum and the IDIQ states that a specified minimum of janitor services must be ordered.  Again all at labor rates it sounds like.

With regard to a TO, and again noting that the IDIQ has established labor categories and rates, then it makes sense (FAR 16.601) that a TO, as a TM/LH type of order, that it would acquire the need at stated labor hours at  specified labor rates identified in either the schedule of the master contract or a more specific schedule of a TO.  Such as some might take a short cut and just say any of the categories/rates of the master apply and advise the contractor not to exceed a ceiling (dare I say a single lump sum CLIN on the TO) while others might have the TO state (by separate CLINS in the TO schedule) the labor category(s), hours and rates that are to perform the work at a stated ceiling price for all.  Either fits from my view.

Don Mansfield said:

The requirement for a "unit price" doesn't apply to T&M/LH. See FAR 4.1005-2(c)(3).

Not so explicit in my view as the the door is left open with a "may" at (4)..... The contracting officer may structure these procurement instruments to reflect a firm or estimated total amount for each line item .

Don Mansfield said:

Do you think that "hour" is the unit of delivery under a T&M/LH contract?

I think I do because FAR 16.601(b) states in part "Description. A time-and-materials contract provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of- (1) Direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates".

ji20874 said:

let me know if you see "total quantity of hours to be delivered."

  The TM/LH is to acquire hours at specified rates.  The total quantity of hours must not exceed the ceiling price.  So the door is open to the CO's discretion (see above) as to hours of specific labor categories that will be delivered.

So all told -

Rachel_CO said:

Is this an acceptable practice considering the fact that the master contract includes the labor categories, rates, and overall estimated LOE and the TO includes a ceiling price?

Yes it would appear that the FAR allows such discretion to the CO.  One caveat it will also depend on what the IDIQ itself establishes.

Rachel_CO said:

Or, should the TO instrument include, at a minimum, the labor categories, labor rates, and a total quantity of hours for performance of the services identified in the TO SOW?

It may.  Again discretion of the CO unless the IDIQ itself states otherwise.

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

We have to be careful in what we say.

I try to be!

C Culham said:

The TM/LH is to acquire hours at specified rates.

That's wrong.

C Culham said:

The total quantity of hours must not exceed the ceiling price.

That's wrong.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

That's wrong.

How so?  

Description. A time-and-materials contract provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of-

           (1) Direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit; 

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

That wrong.

How so?

The contract or order includes a ceiling price that the contractor exceeds at its own risk.

C Culham said:

How so?

Really? You want me to tell you instead of thinking it through yourself?

Please confirm that you want me to do that.

Vern Edwards said:

Really? You want me to tell you instead of thinking it through yourself?

Please confirm that you want me to do that.

Really?  Nothing has ever stopped you before, why now?

C Culham said:

Nothing has ever stopped you before, why now?

Because it's boring to discuss something so elementary.

Instead of me telling you, why not read "The Time and Materials Contract: The Time Has Come for a Long Hard Look"?  It's available here at Wifcon at the articles page.

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

Because it's boring to discuss something so elementary.

Instead of me telling you, why not read "The Time and Materials Contract: The Time Has Come for a Long Hard Look"?  It's available here at Wifcon at the articles page.

Really?  Talk about boring.   We have been down this road before Mr. Edwards!    So now tell me, please I beg you,

1. Why a TM contract, pursuant to the FAR does not  acquire supplies or services on the basis of direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates; and 

2. Why pursuant to the FAR that "it wrong" that a TM contract has a ceiling price that the contractor exceeds at their own risk?

Okay. You asked two questions. First:

C Culham said:

1. Why a TM contract, pursuant to the FAR does not  acquire supplies or services on the basis of direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates

That's not what you said that I said is wrong. This is what you said:

C Culham said:

The TM/LH is to acquire hours at specified rates.

The T&M contract does not "acquire" hours. It acquires services, i.e., work—the performance of a job, the requirements of which are not known at the time of contracting.

The parties agree that the government will pay for the work at hourly rates. (Few things are more professionally stupid than to say than that the government buys hours under a T&M contract.) The objective is not to acquire hours, but to complete the job, if it can be completed, within a ceiling price (which is a dollar amount, not a number of hours). If the job cannot be done within that price, the government has the option of increasing the ceiling price and requiring the contractor to continue to work.

Under a T&M contract "hour" is not a valid "unit" of purchase. (That's what Don was alluding to.) Hours are units of input, not units of output. Hours are not the deliverables. You don't inspect and accept hours. The contractor is paid to make its best efforts to do the specified work within the ceiling price not just book time.

Second, you asked:

C Culham said:

Why pursuant to the FAR that "it wrong" that a TM contract has a ceiling price that the contractor exceeds at their own risk?

That's not what you said that I said is wrong. This is what you said:

C Culham said:

The total quantity of hours must not exceed the ceiling price.

It should be obvious why that is wrong, and I don't want to insult your intelligence by explaining why it's wrong. But I will, since you insisted that I do so:

A ceiling price is a quantity of dollars, not a quantity of hours. According to the T&M payment clauses, the government will not be obligated to pay more dollars than the ceiling price. If the contract involves more than one hourly labor rate, then the quantity of hours that will result in a cost that exceeds the ceiling price will vary by labor mix. And let's not forget the cost of materials.

I hope that shows why you must be more careful about what you say.

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

It acquires services,

On the basis of direct labor hours.  A job bought and paid for not my a shovel full or a tree planted but hours that are acquired from the contractor to dig the hole or plant the tree.   

Just now, Vern Edwards said:

Under a T&M contract "hour" is not a valid "unit" of purchase.

It can be if the CO so chooses it to be.   It seems this is true "...The customer agrees to pay the contractor by the hour..."

Vern Edwards said:

A ceiling price is a quantity of dollars

Yep I agree and is the aggregate of hours the customer has agreed to pay the contractor for the hour by a stipulated hourly rate.  Now before you nit pick I have kept my comments to hours to be in line with the primary subject of the thread but I do understand that the aggregate includes materials as well for a TM.

😏 Oh, Carl. 😉

Vern Edwards said:

Oh, Carl.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Retreadfed said:

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

I see...because nothing is acquired except hours

Deleted. Not worth it.

C Culham said:

I see...because nothing is acquired except hours

Wrong.  The government is acquiring supplies or services under a T&M contract.  Think getting your car repaired.  When you take it in to the mechanic, you get an estimate of the number of hours of labor and the material and parts that will be needed to complete the job.  If it will cost more to get the job done than originally estimated, the mechanic needs to inform you of that and get our permission to exceed the estimate.  This is the classic T&M contract.  You want your car repaired and that is what you bargained for, not for the mechanic to work on your car for a specified number of hours.

It is interesting to say that you are acquiring something and that the less of it you get the better.

Vern Edwards said:

The Time-and-Materials contract and the Labor-Hour contract are the two most misunderstood and misused contract types.

As a contractor now, I often see a strange instance I never envisioned.  That is each labor category and/or type of work ends up as a not-to-exceed or ceiling amount.  I suspect automated finance and contract writing systems are the cause where each labor category or sub task ends up on the contract or order is a separate CLIN.  

I’ve been told not to go over the monetary CLIN amount without the CO doing a mod first.  Twice this year I had to write justifications for change in scope because we need more money for one labor category even though we are under the full contract ceiling.

@formerfed: Interesting.

Here is how I think T&M contract and order line items should be structured in accordance with FAR Subpart 4.10:

CONTRACT LINE ITEM:

0001 Performance in accordance with Section C, Statement of Work

• QTY: 1
• UNIT: Job (JO)
• CEILING PRICE: $XXX,XXX.XX

INFORMATIONAL SUBLINE ITEMS: (See FAR 4.1004, Establishing subline items, paragraph (b), Informational subline items)

000101 Supervisory Mechanic

• EST. QTY: XX
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XXX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMOUNT: $XXX.XX

000102 Journeyman Mechanic

• EST. QTY: XXX
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XXX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMOUNT: $XXXXX.XX

000103 Apprentice Mechanic

• EST QTY: XXX
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMOUNT: $XXXX.XX

000104 Inspector

• EST QTY: X
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XXX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMT: $XXX.XX

000104 Materials

• EST. TOTAL COST: $XXXX.XX

The informational subline items are not "deliverables". They are merely information. See FAR 4.1004(b). They show the labor categories and hourly rates referred to in the payment clause and the bases for the ceiling price. Note that all quantities and totals are estimates.

@Vern Edwards that makes perfect sense.  If I ever have the chance to influence a CO before receiving an order/contract, I will suggest this example.

I was taught contract line item structuring in the 1970s by the late Mary Ann Scott of the Contract Writing Office at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization. She was one of the smartest (maybe the smartest), most knowledgable, most witty, and generally most delightful people I have ever known, and unbeatable at cards. Those of us who went through the training program there owe her a debt of knowledge that we cannot now repay. She comes up in conversation among us occasionally, when someone asks, "What did Mary Ann teach us." I can still see and hear her laughing (kindly) at some of my dumb ideas.

Goodness. I feel myself tearing up. At my age!

You can never repay your best teachers. And when they're gone you think of all your debts.

Retreadfed said:

The government is acquiring supplies or services under a T&M contract.

Nope...hours.   The government might get half the supplies, half the service, none of each or everything they wanted as the government bought hours.

I have read the unfolding thread beyond how Vern says it should work and I would agree, it adds clarify and makes the acquisition different than say if the main line item was not present and all the sub-line items are.   Or in other words it depends on the contract.   Noting Vern's previous reference to a document that was posted in 2004 points this out clearly.  Bottom line the contract terms and conditions count as to what is being bought.

On 2/8/2022 at 1:34 PM, Vern Edwards said:

@formerfed: Interesting.

Here is how I think T&M contract and order line items should be structured in accordance with FAR Subpart 4.10:

CONTRACT LINE ITEM:

0001 Performance in accordance with Section C, Statement of Work

• QTY: 1
• UNIT: Job (JO)
• CEILING PRICE: $XXX,XXX.XX

INFORMATIONAL SUBLINE ITEMS: (See FAR 4.1004, Establishing subline items, paragraph (b), Informational subline items)

000101 Supervisory Mechanic

• EST. QTY: XX
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XXX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMOUNT: $XXX.XX

000102 Journeyman Mechanic

• EST. QTY: XXX
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XXX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMOUNT: $XXXXX.XX

000103 Apprentice Mechanic

• EST QTY: XXX
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMOUNT: $XXXX.XX

000104 Inspector

• EST QTY: X
• UNIT: Hour
• HOURLY RATE: $XXX.XX
• EST. TOTAL AMT: $XXX.XX

000104 Materials

• EST. TOTAL COST: $XXXX.XX

The informational subline items are not "deliverables". They are merely information. See FAR 4.1004(b). They show the labor categories and hourly rates referred to in the payment clause and the bases for the ceiling price. Note that all quantities and totals are estimates.

Vern, given DoD's wave of adjustments in the past 10 years or so in pursuit of audit readiness and what Dr. Carter called  "CLIN Integrity",  is this informational subclin format still available to DoD? 

DFARS 204.7104 seems to me to allow informational sublines as long as doing so has no effect upon delivery, performance or amounts that have contractual significance...

DFARS 204.7104 quoted below (Sorry, I won't be able to highlight pertinent portions from my phone):;

"Contract subline items.

204.7104-1  Criteria for establishing.

Contract subline items provide flexibility to further identify elements within a contract line item for tracking performance or simplifying administration.  There are only two kinds of subline items:  those which are informational in nature and those which consist of more than one item that requires separate identification.

      (a)  Informational subline items.

              (1)  This type of subline item identifies information that relates directly to the contract line item and is an integral part of it (e.g., parts of an assembly or parts of a kit).  These subline items shall not be scheduled separately for delivery, identified separately for shipment or performance, or priced separately for payment purposes.

              (2)  The informational subline item may include quantities, prices, or amounts, if necessary to satisfy management requirements.  However, these elements shall be included within the item description in the supplies/services column and enclosed in parentheses to prevent confusing them with quantities, prices, or amounts that have contractual significance.  Do not enter these elements in the quantity and price columns.

              (3)  Informational subline items shall be used to identify each accounting classification citation assigned to a single contract line item number when use of multiple citations is authorized (see 204.7103-1(a)(4)(ii))."

@FAR-flung 1102I am aware of DFARS 204.7104 and was aware of it and consulted it when I wrote my post. I don't interpret it to prevent the use of informational SUBCLINS as I described. You say:

FAR-flung 1102 said:

DFARS 204.7104 seems to me to allow informational sublines as long as doing so has no effect upon delivery, performance or amounts that have contractual significance...

It does not seem so to me. The SUBCLINS provide information about the CLIN.

My description of CLIN structure is consistent with the DFARS passages that you quoted. Did you see my comment at the end of my post?

Quote

The informational subline items are not "deliverables". They are merely information. See FAR 4.1004(b). They show the labor categories and hourly rates referred to in the payment clause and the bases for the ceiling price. Note that all quantities and totals are estimates.

Unfortunately, the format permissible here did not readily allow me to show the SUBCLIN descriptions in parentheses within the CLIN, which has been DOD's prescribed method for many years. Had I been able to display them in table format (as once we could) compliance with DFARS 204.7104-1(a)(2) would have been clearer.

@FAR-flung 1102I thought you might be interested in seeing how SUBCLINs were described in the Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR) of 1976: 32 CFR Ch. 1, Subchapter A, Section 20, Administrative Matters:

Quote

20-304 Contract Subline Items.

20-304.1 General. Contract subline items provide a further subdivision of the basic contract line item when it is necessary for contract performance or administration purposes to separately identify subordinate requirements. There are only two categories of contract sublines.

(a) The first category comprises those subline items that are included in the procurement instrument for information purposes only and are identified by a numeric suffix. These subline items are an integral part of the associated contract line item but shall not be scheduled separately for delivery, separately identified for shipment or performance or separately priced for payment purposes.

(b) The second category comprises those subline items that have a separate delivery schedule, require separate identification at the time of shipment or performance and/or are separately priced for payment purposes. These subline itemsare identified by an alpha suffix.

20-304.2 Criteria for Establishing.

(a) Subline items included in procurement instruments for informational purposes only (numeric suffix) shall be established at the discretion of the contracting officer. This type of subline item identifies information that relates directly to and is an integral part of the contract line item; e.g., parts of an assembly or parts of a kit. Such subline items shall not have a separate delivery schedule, a separate price for payment purposes or require separate identification at the time of shipment or performance. Informational quantities, prices or amounts determined by the contracting officer as necessary to satisfy management requirements may be identified to such subline items provided that such quantities, prices or amounts are set forth in parentheses within the Supplies/Services (item description) column of the contractual document (i.e., not within the quantity and price columns).

(b) Subline items that have a separate delivery schedule, require separate identification at the time of shipment and/or are separately priced for payment purposes (alpha suffix) shall be established in lieu of line items at the discretion of the contracting officer. This category subline item shall be established whenever a capability must be provided to accumulate separately identified price and/or quantity data at the contract line item level.

As a close reading will show, little has changed after more than 40 years.

On 2/8/2022 at 2:42 PM, formerfed said:

As a contractor now, I often see a strange instance I never envisioned.  That is each labor category and/or type of work ends up as a not-to-exceed or ceiling amount.

As a current CO, this is a trend that drives me mad. I've not worked in an agency where this happened due to the contract or finance system as you mentioned - though I could see where that could be the case. I think it's been a lot of lemming syndrome - doing it the way the last one was done - or the flawed logic that we need to include the price build-up into the contract/order. I've had many actions transferred to me over the years that were set up this way and would usually take it upon myself to modify out the inapplicable information to alleviate the mods and such you speak of.

Vern, thank you...I can now take away a sharper tool from this discussion.

It's interesting how the ability to make such useful distinctions is (or should be) the acquisition professional's stock in trade.  It might be the only thing that no one else is equipped to do.

Vern Edwards said:

@FAR-flung 1102I thought you might be interested in seeing how SUBCLINs were described in the Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR) of 1976: 32 CFR Ch. 1, Subchapter A, Section 20, Administrative Matters:

As a close reading will show, little has changed after more than 40 years.

Thank you for providing that.  

Back when I worked utilities contracts at Ellsworth AFB I had a set ASPRs on my shelf because at least one of my contracts was created under them.  I  wish I'd looked it over the ASPR in my spare time then...if so, I'd have had at least a bit better ballast if not wind in my sails.

Do you know how I can find the ASPR now? I did a cursory search and didn't find anything.

@FAR-flung 1102I access it through a subscription service called Heinonline. It gives me access to many government records going back to our national beginning. I can see every ASPR since the very first. But it's a business expense.

Depository libraries, such as those in some colleges and universities might have it. So might large public libraries.

Let me see if I can find it free online. Give me a couple of days.

If you are looking for something specific let me know. Leave me a message here at Wifcon.

@FAR-flung 1102 Killing some time and in reading latest in this thread I had this recollection of a past thread where I think it was Don that mentioned the Library of Congress for such things.  Did a quick search and found the following.  More in-depth looking at LOC may help you.  

https://www.loc.gov/item/cfr1968065-T32CIP1/

C Culham said:

@FAR-flung 1102 Killing some time and in reading latest in this thread I had this recollection of a past thread where I think it was Don that mentioned the Library of Congress for such things.  Did a quick search and found the following.  More in-depth looking at LOC may help you.  

https://www.loc.gov/item/cfr1968065-T32CIP1/

That's really cool! Thank you!!

I think this is where a lot of the current confusion regarding T&M stems from: Many contracting officers are using the T&M contract type to create an efficient vehicle for ordering of supplies or services after requirements materialize when an IDTC with ordering officers or BPA with authorized callers would be more appropriate, but won't work because it takes too long to get funds committed prior to placing an order or making a call and to record the obligation afterward (due in my opinion to the increasing interconnectedness of the financial systems used for approving and recording commitments and obligations in an "auditable" manner).

A T&M contract should have a fully-defined requirement/outcome (e.g. job) which will require an unknown quantity of labor and materials to achieve (otherwise the requirement is not sufficiently "firm and complete" to constitute a valid obligation, see B-196109, OCT 23, 1979). But many actual T&M CLINs seem to be mechanisms for bulk obligating funds in advance of specific known requirements, so they can then be "ordered" against by the COR or someone else without having to go through the entire funds approval process, which in many cases seems to take longer than the contracting process.

So, it isn't surprising that there is confusion or disagreement about the use of T&M, as different people really are talking about two entirely different things: 1) "Actual T&M" with defined requirement/outcome but unknown labor/materials; and 2) "IDTC via T&M" as an efficient (if fiscally dubious) way to bulk obligate funding for ordering later once requirements are known.

Witty_Username said:

But many actual T&M CLINs seem to be mechanisms for bulk obligating funds in advance of specific known requirements, so they can then be "ordered" against by the COR or someone else without having to go through the entire funds approval process, which in many cases seems to take longer than the contracting process.

You cannot "bulk obligate" appropriated funds against an IDIQ contract in advance of requirements. That's because there is no legal obligation (other than the obligation to buy a minimum) until you issue an order. Citing funds on a contract without a legal obligation does not constitute an obligation of funds. It constitutes "overrecording" of an obligation. So if people are doing what you say they are doing, thinking that they can get around proper fiscal procedures, they are misinformed.

See GAO Red Book, 3d ed., Vol. II, Ch. 7, Subchapter B, Section 1.