Subpart 2937.1 - Service Contracts-General

Parent topic: PART 2937 - SERVICE CONTRACTING

2937.103 Contracting officer responsibility.

The HCA is responsible for establishing internal review and approval procedures for service

contracts in accordance with OFPP Policy Letter 93-1 (Reissued), “Management Oversight of Service

Contracting”. As defined by FAR 37.101, contracts for personal services are permitted under the

circumstances in 5 U.S.C. 3109.

2937.103-70 Department of Labor checklist to aid analysis

and review of requirements for service contracts.

Contracting specialists and contracting officers must work in close collaboration with the

beneficiaries of the services being purchased to ensure that contractor performance meets contract

requirements and performance standards.

(a) General. Following is a checklist to aid analysis and review of requirements for service contracts.

(1) Is the statement of work complete, with a clear-cut division of responsibility between the

contracting parties?

(2) Is the statement of work discussed in terms the market can satisfy?

(3) Does the statement of work encompass all commercially available services that can meet the

actual functional need (eliminates any nonessential preferences that may thwart full and open

competition)?

(4) Is the statement of work performance-based to the maximum extent possible (i.e., is the

acquisition structured around the purpose of the work to be performed, as opposed to either the

manner by which the work is to be performed or a broad and imprecise statement of work)?

(b) Cost effectiveness. If the response to any of the following questions is negative, the agency may

not have a valid requirement or not be obtaining the requirement in the most cost effective manner.

(1) Is the statement of work written so that it supports the need for a specific service?

(2) Is the statement of work written so that it permits adequate evaluation of contractor versus inhouse cost and performance?

(3) Are the choices of contract type, quality assurance plan, competition strategy, or other related

acquisition strategies and procedures in the acquisition plan appropriate to ensure good contractor

performance to meet the user's needs?

(4) If a cost reimbursement contract is contemplated, is the acquisition plan adequate to ensure that

the contractor will have the incentive to control costs under the contract?
(5) Is the acquisition plan adequate to address the cost effectiveness of using contractor support

(either long-term or short-term) versus in-house performance?

(6) Is the cost estimate or other supporting cost information adequate to enable the contracting

office to effectively determine whether costs are reasonable?

(7) Is the statement of work adequate to describe the requirement in terms of “what” is to be

performed as opposed to “how” the work is to be accomplished?

(8) Is the acquisition plan adequate to ensure that there is proper consideration given to “quality”

and “best value?”

(c) Control. If the response to any of the following questions is negative, there may be a control

problem.

(1) Are there sufficient resources to evaluate contractor performance when the statement of work

requires the contractor to provide advice, analysis and evaluation, opinions, alternatives, or

recommendations that could significantly influence agency policy development or decision-making?

(2) Does the quality assurance plan provide for adequate monitoring of contractor performance?

(3) Is the statement of work written so that it specifies a contract deliverable or requires progress

reporting on contractor performance?

(4) Is agency expertise adequate to independently evaluate the contractor's approach, methodology,

results, options, conclusions or recommendations?

(d) Conflicts of interest. If the response to any of the following questions is affirmative, there may be

a conflict of interest.

(1) Can the potential offeror perform under the contract to devise solutions or make

recommendations that would influence the award of future contracts to that contractor?

(2) If the requirement is for support services (such as system engineering or technical direction),

were any of the potential offerors involved in developing the system design specifications or in the

production of the system?

(3) Has a potential offeror participated in earlier work involving the same program or activity that is

the subject of the present contract, wherein the offeror had access to source selection or proprietary

information not available to other offerors competing for the contract?

(4) Will the contractor be evaluating a competitor's work?

(5) Does the contract allow the contractor to accept its own products or activities on behalf of the

Government?

(6) Will the work under this contract put the contractor in a position to influence government

decision-making, e.g., developing regulations that will affect the contractor's current or future

business?

(7) Will the work under this contract affect the interests of the contractor's other clients?

(8) Are any of the potential offerors, or their personnel who will perform the contract, former agency

officials who - while employed by the agency - personally and substantially participated in the
development of the requirement for, or the procurement of, these services within the past two

years?

(e) Competition. If the response to any of the following questions is negative, competition may be

unnecessarily limited.

(1) Is the statement of work defined so as to avoid overly restrictive specifications or performance

standards?

(2) Is the contract formulated in such a way as to avoid creating a continuous and dependent

arrangement with the same contractor?

(3) Is the use of an indefinite quantity or term contract arrangement appropriate to obtain the

required services?

(4) Will the requirement be obtained through the use of full and open competition?