Need advise,
I was given a CPFF contract to close out, there are several delivery orders that were issued under this contract, some issued in 95, 97 and 98 with O&E and ACI funds. My predecessor failed to notify the govt of limitation of funds and in closing out some of the Orders I discovered my company incurred cost exceeding the funding value of the D.O. I know that the Govt is not obligated to pay for any incurred cost exceeding the D.O. value. I though maybe with ACI appropriated funds I could transfer from surplus funds to those overrun Orders. Have any one every experience this type of problem. Is there any hope for recovering overrun cost?

Any reply would be greatly appreciated.

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 02:29 pm:

Mary,

What is the contract!!!!

If you have a CPFF term or completion contract, the "delivery orders" should not be considered contracts and the LOF should apply to the entire contract, unless there is specific language in the contract which would limit expenditures for individual orders.

(A "delivery order" under a CPFF contract is a contradiction in terms. But strange things are done.)

Eric

By Anonymous on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 02:47 pm:

You cannot use ACI funds to pay O&E bills or vice versa.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 05:03 pm:

Eric:

Couldn't you have an IDIQ contract that calls for the manufacture and delivery of custom products under CPFF clauses?

I realize that it would be unusual to have a CPFF contract for supplies, but it would not be illegal or impossible. In what way would it be a contradiction in terms?

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 05:13 pm:

Vern,

Sure,

You could have a definite CPFF order under an ID/IQ vehicle.

No way you can have an indefinite ID/IQ under a defintite CPFF.

However, strange things are done.

In any case the LOF either applies to the CPFF as a contract or the order as a contract, not both. (Albeit, there may be other Ts & Cs which limit the funding available for each order.)

Eric

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 05:28 pm:

Well, we are planning to issue an RFP for a $500-800 million CPAF, ID-IQ, Systems Contract to design-construct-systemize-train-operate-close/remove a Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Facility, pretty damn quick. Is this "no way"? Happy Sails! joel

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 05:48 pm:

Eric:

Maybe Mary has an IDIQ contract with CPFF clauses or a CPFF contract with a completion line item and an IDIQ line item.

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 12:46 pm:

Joel,

Let’s eliminate completion type which would be really illogical. If the term form is intended, FAR 16.306 (d)(4) “The term form SHALL not be used unless the contractor is obligated by the contract to provide a SPECIFIC level of effort within a definite time period.”

(I guess you could argue that CPAF is entirely a different animal. I don’t believe it. But, it would be an interesting argument.)

Which is the overarching vehicle?

A definite order under an indefinite ordering vehicle makes sense. An indefinite ordering vehicle under an overarching definite vehicle strikes me as Alice in Wonderland.

However, quoting Robert Service, “Strange things are done… "

Vern,

Separate line items with different contract types are effectively separate contracts with different terms and conditions.

Again, what is the contract? To what does the LOF apply?

Eric

By joel hoffman on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 02:04 pm:

Eric, if we are speaking about my systems contract, it is a CPAF, task order contract with an overall scope of work, in several phases, which cannot be totally definitized due to several reasons. The Government will provide design criteria for the systems contractor to complete the design, then build, systemize, operate and remove. The work will be issued through task orders.

I don't see why a CPFF completion form would be "illogical", had we not decided to use an incentive approach (CPAF). Each task order can include a description of the scope of work by stating a definite goal or or target and specify an end item, product or result. In each case, the systems contractor will define the scope through design, construction, systemization plans, technical approaches, studies and reports, etc.

In fact, this would be the appropriate form of CPFF, if that contract type had been chosen - not the term form.
Happy Sails! joel

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 03:09 pm:

Joel,

First, I am glad that you agree that CPFF (or CPAF) can be a tasking contract. There are some authorities who seem to be oblivious to this fact.

However, since FASA, the term “Task Order” can only be used for indefinite quantity contracts.

FAR 16.501-1 Definitions.

““Task order contract” means a contract for services that does not procure or specify a firm quantity of services (other than a minimum or maximum quantity) and that provides for the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks during the period of the contract.”

However, the terms “task assignment” and “technical instruction” are commonly used for tasks under a CPFF term contract.

FAR 16.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.

“ The completion form describes the scope of work by stating a definite goal or target and specifying an end product.”

If you can’t fully specify the end product at the start of the contract I would say that you have a UCA or a contract type other than a completion contract. I can’t see how a CPFF completion type would be appropriate for a contract “which cannot be totally definitized.” However, you could write separate contracts for each phase or definitize a separate line item for each phase. (Note, that I am not considering CICA issues here.)

Getting back to Mary’s issue. To what does the LOF apply? Does she have one LOF at the level of the overarching contract vehicle, or several LOFs, one for each cost type order?

Eric

By Mary Thompson on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 06:18 pm:

Let me first thank you all for taking the time to address my problem. In reading your responses I have learned a great deal, as I am yet a novice, hopefully this will help paint a clearer picture of the situation.

Anonymous,

I agree that ACI and O&E funds can not be intermixed with one another, based on the Anti-Deficiency Act, but what I really want to know is can ACI funds, which is multiyear funds, be transferred from (the same pot of money but different years) year to year and if so what is the duration. With that concept, staying with the same type of money can O&E money be transferred from one order to the next.

Eric and Joel,

I’m not sure what you mean by “what is the contract” but here is a stab – I’m looking at the SOW, and it calls for engineering and technical service. The contract itself is an ID/IQ, cost reimbursement, with LOF. According to the contract it states each D.O. “Delivery order performance (CPFF term and completion delivery orders)” and sites the FAR clauses for both provision. There is not additional T&Cs in each DO, as the main contract governs each. Each order states the one LOF that is applicable to hours.

I hope this helps, you all have, and again I thank you.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 09:09 pm:

Mary, Eric, and Joel:

This thread started with Mary saying that she has to close out a CPFF contract under which several "delivery orders" were issued.

This prompted Eric to say, first, "A 'delivery order' under a CPFF contract is a contradiction in terms," and then, "No way you can have an indefinite ID/IQ under a definite CPFF," and then, "An indefinite ordering vehicle under an overarching definite vehicle strikes me as Alice in Wonderland."

Joel then said that he has a job which must be done in phases "which cannot be totally definitized... . The Government will provide design criteria for the systems contractor to complete the design, then build, systemize, operate and remove. The work will be issued through orders."

This prompted Eric to say, "If you can't fully specify the end product at the start of the contract I would say that you have a UCA [undefinitized contractual action?] or a contract type other than a completion contract. I can't see how CPFF completion type would be appropriate for a contract 'which cannot be totally definitized.' However, you could write separate contracts for each phase or definitize a separate line item for each phase."

The exchanges between Eric and Joes don't have anything to do with Mary, and I think that they reflect a big misunderstanding between Eric and Joel.

I think that Joel has a CPFF completion type contract for a chemical demilitarization project with clearly defined performance objectives, but which must proceed in phases based on a design-build-operate-dismantle basis.

The contractor must design a system, then build it, then operate it to do the demilitarization work, then dismantle the system and go home.

The contract says that the contractor must obtain the government's approval before proceeding with each phase of the work. Thus, the contractor must obtain the government's approval of its final system design before it can build the system. After building the system, the contractor must get the government's approval of it as built before it can begin the demilitarization work. Finally, the contractor must receive the government's approval of the demilitarization work before it can dismantle the system, collect its fee, and go home.

Joel's agency is using what it calls "task orders" to authorize the contractor to proceed with each phase. Each such order specifies the performance objectives for the next phase of the project based on the work done in the previous phase.

Joel -- Am I close?

This kind of thing can be done under a performance-based CPFF completion contract (or CPAF completion contract) with an estimated cost, or a ceiling cost, or even a "guaranteed maximum" cost. It is also possible to use a progressive pricing scheme, pricing the work as you go along, but such schemes have CICA implications. Fixed-pricing isn't out of the question, but it's risky.

Such a contracting approach is not a contradiction in terms, Alice in Wonderland, or illogical. Such contracts must be administered with great skill lest the government's approval process unduly delay the contractor and lead to cost overruns and demands for additional fee.

If I have this right and if there has, in fact, been a misunderstanding between Eric and Joel, then I suggest that it was due to loose use of terminology.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 11:12 am:

Mary:

Here is your most recent statement of your question:

"[W]hat I really want to know is can ACI funds, which is multiyear funds, be transferred from (the same pot of money but different years) year to year and if so what is the duration. With that concept, staying with the same type of money can O&E money be transferred from one order to the next."

I'm not sure that I understand that question, but I'm going to take a stab at answering it anyway, as follows:

Appropriated funds can be obligated at any time during the year(s) for which they are available, whether the funds are annual (one-year) or multiple-year. As a general rule, if the government obligated funds on an order, but the contractor did not use all of the money, then the government can deobligate the excess funds and reobligate them on a different order, as long as it does so within the year(s) for which the funds were available for obligation. This is true of both annual and multiple-year appropriations.

My authority for making those statements is the General Accounting Office publication, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Second Edition, Vol. II, p. 7-52, which says:

"Funds deobligated within the original period of obligational availability are once again available for new obligations just as if they had never been obligated in the first place. Naturally, any new obligations are subject to the purpose, time, and amount restrictions governing the source appropriation."

On the other hand: "Funds deobligated after the expiration of the original period of obligational authority are not available for new obligations."

WARNING: The agency that hired your company may have internal policies that further regulate deobligation and reobligation.

But this answer does not resolve your real problem, which is that your company exceeded a limitation of funds without notifying the contracting officer and getting his or her approval to continue working. What you really want to know is: "Is there any hope for recovering overrun cost?"

Mary, that's an entirely different question. If the contract applied the Limitation of Funds clause to individual orders, and if your company exceeded the limitation on an order without obtaining contracting officer approval, then the government probably doesn't owe your company any money. So even if the government can deobligate excess money from one or more orders and reobligate those funds to cover the excess spending on another, it may not be willing to do so.

The point that Eric has been trying to make is that the standard language of the Limitation of Funds clause applies to the entire contract and not to individual orders. If the government intented to apply the clause to individual orders, then it should have said something in the contract to that effect.

Is there a clause in your contract that indicates that the Limitation of Funds clause applies to individual orders? Do individual orders state the funding limitation applicable to them? If the answer to those questions is yes, then you are facing a potentially more complicated problem than funds availability.

By joel hoffman on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 05:31 pm:

This is Mary's thread, so I won't belabor my point. I thought I knew what kind of contract that Army's OSC is going to issue. It is an indefinite quantity contract, CPAF type. Every scope of work will be issued through task orders. first, there will be a "management task". Then, the rest of the work will be added by individual tasks. When I said that the work cannot be "definitized", I meant that it could not be accurately estimated for FFP type task orders, because there are too many variables. That's all. I thought Eric was saying it is improper to have a CPFF or CPAF completion type, indefinite quantity contract. --- back to Mary. Happy Sails!

By Vern Edwards on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 07:46 pm:

Joel:

I think that Eric did say that a CPFF completion type contract is inconsistent with an IDIQ contract. But I should let him speak for himself.

I thought that you had a completion type contract with an ordering provision to authorize the performance of the work in phases. It appears that I got that wrong. I now understand you to say that you have a "completion type, indefinite quantity contract." In that case, I agree with Eric that the terms of an IDIQ contract seem to be inconsistent with the terms of a completion type contract.

Oh well, who knows?

By joel hoffman on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 10:46 pm:

????

"16.501-2 General.

(c) Indefinite-delivery contracts may provide for any appropriate cost or pricing arrangement under Part 16."

I believe our Design-Integration contract (active since circa 1985) is a CPFF ID/IQ. This is the A-E services contract under which 7 of the Chem-Demil, Incineration plants have been designed.

Our Chem-Demil umbrella contract for all work in Russia is either CPAF or CPFF and is ID/IQ.

Didn't know we couldn't do this. The Acquisition Plan for the Russian contract was approved at DOD level. Don't know if there was such a thing as an acquisition plan back in the 80's. I wasn't in this program, then.
Happy Sails!

By Vern Edwards on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 09:22 am:

Joel:

The issue isn't the pricing arrangement per se. The issue is the notion of a contract which calls for the contractor to complete a project, but under which the government promises only to buy a minimum quantity of services, which is all that the government promises to do under an IDIQ contract.

By the way, I didn't say you couldn't do what you're doing. I don't think this is a regulatory issue. I think its an issue in business logic.

I can see calling for completion of a project in phases with written authorization required prior to the initiation of each phase, which is what I thought that you were doing on your demil job. But I think that the appropriate instrument for that is a contract that calls for a mutual commitment to the project. It seems strange to say that the contractor is required to complete a project under a contract which requires the government to buy only a minimum quantity.

While I don't think it makes business sense, I don't think it's illegal. I believe that the IRS is using that approach on its modernization contract and that the GAO has gone along with it. I know of one other agency that is planning to use the approach.

By joel hoffman on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 08:47 am:

I understand. Thanks. Happy Sails! Joel

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:03 pm:

All,

You can have goose in a flock but you can’t have a flock in a goose. You can have a house in a subdivision but you can’t have a subdivision in a house.

You can have a cost type order (or fixed price or T&M, etc.) under an ID/IQ, but I can’t imagine an indefinite, min/max ID/IQ under a definite, cost type contract.

It Mary has an ID/IQ with ten CFAF orders, there should be ten separate LOF ceilings, which seems to be the case.

As I think Vern is well aware, it is somewhat of an oversimplification to say that the overrrun will not be funded if the notification was not provided in a timely fashion.

(I should note that I have had more frustration with government people and contractors who think that quantum meruit requires the Government to fund every overrun, no matter what the circumstances might be.)

I would ask whether the overrun was foreseeable. I would ask whether the overruns and underruns wash. If Mary’s problem is simply a question of reallocating the funding that has already been obligated on the ID/IQ, that might be a reasonable thing to do.

I think Joel’s arrangement is de facto a firm cost type contract with several options, which haven’t been negotiated. However, since the FAR frowns on unpriced options, the ID/IQ approach is a pragmatic workaround. I don’t question that it is a sensible business arrangement for the work that he has described.

Per Vern, “The point that Eric has been trying to make is that the standard language of the Limitation of Funds clause applies to the entire contract and not to individual orders. If the government intended to apply the clause to individual orders, then it should have said something in the contract to that effect.”

Au contraire. Each order should be treated as a separate contract and there should be an LOF ceiling in each order. However, If I were Mary, I would take a hard look at the contract and the orders, to see exactly what the contract says.

Vern,

My controller friends tell me that since the M account fiasco, the rules have been rewritten. It is no longer proper to fund previous year overruns out of current appropriations. For a previous year, it is possible to deobligate unused funds off of one contract (or order) and reobligate the same funds on a different contract (order) to cover an overrun. I have relied on the expertise of our Government comptroller types to advise me in these matters and Mary should do the same.

In short, I think the answer to the her question is a tentative "Yes", but she will need some expert help to get this sorted out.

Eric

By bob antonio on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:24 pm:

Eric:

I believe you have it just about correct on the deobligation. However, I believe it goes into an "expired" account and cannot be reobligated. It is available for expenditure under the circumstances in this piece of legislation.

"Sec. 1553. Availability of appropriation accounts to pay obligations

(a) After the end of the period of availability for obligation of a fixed appropriation account and before the closing of that account under section 1552(a) of this title, the account shall retain its fiscal-year identity and remain available for recording, adjusting, and liquidating obligations properly chargeable to that account."

The law is at

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1553.text.html

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:38 pm:

Bob,

If the satute says that the funds will be available for "adjusting", I believe that might cover Mary's situation.

This is not an area where I have any particular expertise. However, I would note that we could get into some situations where it would be very inequitable if the Government didn't have some freedom to make "adjustments."

I believe the funding would lose its identity (i.e. funding line) and it would be reobligated under a new funding line. If you mean, that you can't reobligate exactly the same funds, that would be correct.

However, the cognizant authorities may view Mary's ID/IQ as one big contract (notwithstanding my arguments) for this purpose, and they may not find it objectionable to shift some of the funding from one order to another order.

Eric

By joel hoffman on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 01:19 pm:

I'm not sure about your particular contract but am familiar with DOD type one-year appropriation O&M funded, contract limitations. On an O&M funded contract, the original year appropriations must be used for in-scope changes and modifications, unless no longer available. Expired O&M funds remain available for in-scope changes/modifications, until all such funds are exhausted. Thus, one usually cannot use current year funding, for example, to fund fund changes or overruns on those contracts - until all of the original year funds are exhausted, even if they are "expired funds".

By joel hoffman on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 02:11 pm:

Bob, is this the Statute covering my situation? Happy Sails! Joel

By Mary Thompson on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 04:02 pm:

All thanks ever so much for your expertise:

Vern,
Yes, me over all question is “Is there any hope for recovering overrun cost”.

Based on everyone responses I’ve been busy reading the main contract and each delivery orders and here is my discovery:

The Coast Guard awarded an ID/IQ cost reimbursement contract that states among other things, that delivery orders will be issued as cost plus fixed fee term and completions. The main contract does quote the Limitation of Funds clause, but does not state that it’s applicable to individual orders. Strangely enough, there are provisions in the main contract that spells out organizational conflict of interest for “Preparing Work Statements”, “Obtaining Access to Proprietary Information”, and “Preparing Specifications” and it states very clearly that these items are “applicability of this clause will be established on individual delivery orders”, so does this mean that the LOF clause is applicable to each order regardless if the delivery order states it? In checking each order some of them incorporate the LOF clause in the order and modification(s) and some don’t. For those delivery orders that do not incorporate the LOF clause we have overruns.

I am still investigating each order to see if any of the overruns were foreseeable. Inclusively, the overruns and under runs will wash and in fact when its all said and done there will be funds to de-obligate.

I’ve experience a situation were the contracting office de-obligated funds from one delivery order to cover overruns of another order. I’m aware that it depends on the agency and the relationship with the agency and contractor (I was brought on only to close out the contract and therefore have not established a relationship with the CO and the way this look, not a good start).

What I’m fighting here is a contracting specialist who is discussing with her legal department the choice of paying for overruns. According to her legal dept. they say it’s inappropriate and illegal to transfer funds that was used or appropriated for a specific task to another task (but in reviewing some of the orders it states for instance: D.O 005 begins upon the expiration of D.O. 01). Which to me mean that the tasks are related to each other and/or at less funds from D.Os 01 and 05 can be transferable.

Eric and Bob,
What you stated, “It is no longer proper to fund previous year overruns out of current appropriations…. and re-obligate the same funds on a different contract to cover an overrun”. Eric

Bob, “… it goes into an “expired” account and cannot be re-obligated” is precisely what the Contracting Specialist is saying. She indicated that when she de-obligate the funds from the under run order that the funds will be lost and that its no way to save the funds to obligate them to the overrun orders. I am hoping to find some FAR clause or legal terminology that will support my request to transfer funds. Thanks Bob I will check out site provide.

Again, Much appreciation To All!!!

Mary

By joel hoffman on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 05:44 pm:

Mary, This is an appropriations law issue, not a FAR issue. I suggest you have your attorney check 31 U.S.C. para. 1502(a). Your Resource Management folks should also be familiar with the procedures.


I took the following quote from the Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army 145th Contract Attorney's Course Deskbook (Jul/Aug 2000).

" Expired funds retain their 'fiscal year identity' for five years after the
period of availability. During this time, the funds are available to adjust existing obligations, or to liquidate prior valid obligations but not to incur new obligations."


I don't know what Department you work for, so the US Code reference may vary
for Civilian vs. DOD.
Happy Sails! joel

By joel hoffman on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 05:50 pm:

Mary, the above cite from the Army's JAG Deskbook clarifies my earlier statement that expired funds remain available until exhausted - they remain available until exhausted or up to five years after period of availability, whichever comes first. Happy Sails! Joel

By bob antonio on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 06:45 pm:

Joel and Mary:

I was not following this thread closely. However, I saw you discussing appropriations. The law is at 31 U.S.C. 1551 to 1558. The law is here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/ch15.html

Basically, if money is deobligated beyond its fiscal year, it goes into the "expired account" with its identify. It keeps its identify because of the old problems with the "M" accounts. It cannot be reobligated. However, it can be used to pay off appropriate expenditures until it is closed. The specifics are in the law that I cited. The Red Book discusses this clearly at about Part 5.

By joel hoffman on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 08:34 pm:

Assuming several things here, from what I read:
1. Mary's contract had a limitation of funds clause.
2. The Government failed to place a limitation of funds on individual delivery orders, which use different type funding, thus erroneously allowed overruns in some appropriations, while others have underruns.
3. Mary needs some funds which would be made available by de-obligation from one delivery order to fund another order?
4. Mary's contract specialist considers this a new obligation?

I believe that the prohibition on re-obligating funds applies to NEW obligations. Isn't Mary's case a situation where "the funds are available to adjust existing obligations, or to liquidate prior valid obligations but not to incur new obligations?" Of course, it also depends on when the underfunded task order was issued - presumably while the funds were unexpired. Happy Sails! joel

By bob antonio on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 05:20 am:

Here is a tutorial on financial management. Go to the following page and scroll down.

http://www.wifcon.com/bonafidecontents.htm

By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 09:21 am:

Mary and All,

By chance Carl Peckinpaugh addressed the overrun issue in FCW this week. Peckinpaugh cites a few cases, but there a numerous relevant cases available in CCH and other authorities.

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/1113/pol-carl-11-13-00.asp

My friend in the controller’s office tells me that there is no distinction between prior year funds that were never obligated and prior year funds which have been deobligated. It is all the same, from the point of view of DoD 7000.14-R Chapter 10. (However, if the deobligated funds are used to cover an overrun, there will be a new ACRN and a new funding line.)

Notwithstanding the prohibition on new obligations, the prior year funds can be used for claims and adjustments (including overruns).

CON 210; Government Contract Law Course Text; (1999 Edition)

“4-7. An expired obligation is no longer available for new obligations. Under the former successor or "M" Accounts (31 U.S.C.1551 et seq.), obligated balances retained their fiscal year identity for two years, then were merged into successor accounts having no fiscal year identity, but retaining purpose identity, and remaining available indefinitely. Unobligated balances retained their fiscal year identity for two years in a surplus account similar to obligated balances. Currently, while obligated but unexpended balances and unobligated balances retain their fiscal year identity for five years after their expiration date, they may not be used for new obligations. Agencies have a five year window to settle contractor claims and make other contract adjustments. After five years, obligations must be satisfied out of current year funds.”


DoD 7000.14-R -- DoD Financial Management Regulation; Volume 3 -- Budget Execution -- Availability and Use of Budgetary Resources; December 1996

Chapter 10

“C. Title 10, United States Code, section 7313(b), and applicable appropriation language, permit expired appropriations available to the Department to be used for new obligations of appropriations for specific purposes. Those include payment to a Working Capital Fund activity and payment to a contractor for unusual cost overruns and changes in the scope of work for ship overhaul, maintenance, and repair.

1. While expired appropriations may be used in certain instances for new obligations, these appropriations are not available beyond the end of the fifth fiscal year following their expiration.”

Just for clarity-- The Section I “Limitation of Funds” clause requires a separate full text clause in the contract to establish to LOF ceiling. I don’t think it matters whether the Section I clause in is in the orders, but there should be a full text clause specifying the LOF ceiling in the order. If the order is fully funded, I would assume that Limitation of Cost applies.

Eric

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 09:47 am:

Thanks, all. The AF "Fiscal Law Tutorial", found at Bob's link, covers the subject of period of availability well - it clearly states that adjustments and in scope changes are fair use of the expired funds. Happy Sails!

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 06:46 pm:

Mary:

I think that it is significant that some orders incorporate the LOF clause and some don't and that your overruns occurred on the ones that don't. Allow me to suggest at this point that if the amount of money is significant, you should discuss the problem with a competent government contract law attorney. You need professional advice.

Vern

By Mary Thompson on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 12:19 pm:

Thanks all for your help in this matter.