Since both the DFARs clause and the contract mod will be on contract, which one should be followed? In other words, can a DFARs clause be superceeded by contract direction?
You have raised a couple of issues in your question. First, let me address the FAR 52.215-8 Order of Precedence clause. That clause is placed in a solicitation or contract to deal with any unknown conflicts (ambiguities) contained within the solicitation or the contract document. You should never deliberately create an ambiguity in the contract and then seek relief by invoking the Order of Precedence clause; do not create an ambiguity on purpose.
Your main issue is to only partially implement the DFAR 252.234-7002 Earned Value Management (EVM) clause to just the fractional portion of the contract that has been funded. This action would skew the EVM report and would create a false report. The EVM procedures and the Contractor Performance Report (CPR) formats allow for the situation of an incrementally funded contract while reporting against the total contract amount. If you were to implement this fractional reporting then you would need to adjust each time additional incremental funding is added to the contract thereby creating many differing baselines for the CPR. I assume that you would be adjusting the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) each time you add funding to the contract as well. You did not describe your plans for adjusting the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) so that each would correspond to the fraction CPR.
Lastly, this action may be costly to implement depending on the contractor’s EVM reporting system; can it accommodate easily to this fractional reporting methodology? Additional detailed information can be found in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) in Chapter 11 at paragraph 11.3. You should consult with your organization’s EVM expert before undertaking this approach.
The DAG can be found at: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=325262&lang=en-US
Open full Question Details