Does anyone have a solution to the following problem?

I want to write a P.O. iaw FAR Part 12 (and DFARS) for IT services, to include a separate CLIN for travel. Right now I can't think of a way to do this since travel locations are unknow, no fixed prices to put in the order. Part 12 requires only FFP or FP with EPA. This travel would be authorized at cost only. How can I do this without having to write a separate order for travel each time.

By Dave Berkey on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 03:18 pm:

I recommend using the GSA schedules which have no such hinderance and will be at least as easy as FAR 12. There are 1,800 of so contractors on the GSA FSS Group 70 IT schedule. No CBD needed. Pick three players and send email RFQs. See www.fss.gsa.gov/schedules. Then just make line item two with a not to exceed amount for travel and say that it will be reimbursed per FAR 31 using the Joint Travel or Fed Travel Regs. Remember that the schedules are to be used before going open market per FAR part 8.

By Anon1 on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 04:55 pm:

If an item is a commercial item, then whether you use part 8 or part 13, doesn't both have to follow part 12. To my knowledge GSA doesn't have a waiver to 12 and the FFP requirement, do they?

By Anonymous on Saturday, September 08, 2001 - 09:30 am:

This has come up before. Some of the newer GSA schedules appear to be Part 12 (Although I and other contract people I know have had and continue to have extreme difficulty (impossibility) in getting the underlying contract and clauses required for administration) yet the schedules contemplate possibility of time and material orders with reimbursables for travel.

I have only seen the travel expressed as reimbursable in accordance with JTR, or as mods with funding to cover the NTE cost of the trip once details are known.

What do others do.

By Anon2U on Saturday, September 08, 2001 - 06:59 pm:

I just add the travel on as a reimbursable to be performed IAW the federal travel regulations. Since some of mine involve overseas training courses, the travel can almost exceed the MOBIS labor hours.

But what else can be done except just add it on. They submit Airline tickets and we only pay what they pay so they do not profit and with the Fly American Act the carriers are even restricted. So therefore, it would seem to be the best value to the government to avoid a lot of administrative cost and just add it on.

By Vern Edwards on Saturday, September 08, 2001 - 08:33 pm:

You say you're writing a purchase order, so I assume that you're using simplified acquisition procedures to buy commercial services. Is that right? If so, you should not use a cost-reimbursement line item. See FAR 12.207 and 13.302-1(a).

Instead of writing a cost-reimbursement line item, write an unpriced line item. See FAR 13.302-2. Use the authority in FAR 13.302-2(b)(iii). Describe the service as work-related travel performed as ordered or agreed. Agree on a total monetary limitation for the line item. After the travel has been completed, agree on a reasonable fixed-price based on the contractor's travel costs and then pay the invoice amount.

By Anon1 on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 05:02 pm:

I actually have written an order using an unpriced line item. I just wonder if that isn't violating the real intent of part 12. I can say, if contractor's could use GSA city pairs and the P.O. held the contractor's to those fares, then I would have a FFP line item.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 05:51 pm:

The "real intent" of FAR Part 12? Who knows what that is? FAR Part 13 says to use an unpriced purchase order instead of a cost-reimbursement purchase order. FAR Part 12 says to comply with FAR Part 13 unless there's a conflict. There is no conflict. What more do you need to know?

By Anon2U on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 08:53 pm:

The delivery order is funded NTE for travel. The contractor submits proper invoices with travel IAW with Federal Travel Regulations. I agree that amount invoiced is the fixed price we should pay. I sign the invoice for payment. Hope that complys with Part 13 because the agency has done it this way for years longer than I've been there and the IG hasn't said a word about it. It is the most economical method I can think of.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 09:10 pm:

Anon2U:

Sounds in accordance with FAR and right to me.

By Anonymous8 on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 - 09:00 am:

How is a NTE unpriced CLIN FFP?
Why do we look to Part 13 for a schedule buy?

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 - 09:50 am:

Anon8:

An NTE unpriced line item is not FFP, not really. But it's a regulatorily accepted compromise technique.

I don't think Anon1's original question is about a schedule buy. I think that came up somehow in the course of the conversation. Part 13 does not apply to a schedule buy.

By Loki on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 - 12:22 pm:

Vern, et. al.,

Do they truly provide for full and open competition?

Do they pass the incidentals test(s) established by GAO in the Pyxis type cases?

Dave Berkley - the schedules do have such hinderances. Each clin forms it's own unique scope of work. If there is no clin for a thing, it can't be found to be under contract....can't have the quasi full and open competition that the schedules provide (which is under severe attack right now!)