Looking for information on the pros and cons between a build to print and a
build to spec for a follow on contract. We have a design package that was built from a performance spec. Concerns about the build to print is cots obsolescence being the government responsibility to pay to fix. A concern about a build to spec is that we loss configuration and wont match the previous build.
This response is based on the information provided. We suggest you discuss with your contracting team, program manager and/or legal department as appropriate.
The terms "Build to Print" and "Build to Spec" are not FAR or DFARS terms; we did find "Build to Print" in appendices of the NMCARS. We cannot comment on the pros and cons between the two approaches. We are not clear why a company building to a specification (presumably a specification we agreed with or gave to the contractor) has a greater chance of losing configuration management than when doing a "Build to Print". More to the point, if Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) items become obsolete and need to be replaced in a follow-on contract the Government would generally be responsible to pay for updated COTS items.