I've recently been assigned to deal with some grant-related construction
contracts for the first time.  After looking up the procurement regs in
A-110, it appears that the way our programmatic people have tried to
structure the first one of these (before consulting with me, of course)
is as a "cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost" agreement, which is not
permissible.

Can anyone out there point me to a good source of information on how far
you have to get away from a strictly cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost
contract to be legal?  They want to just slap a "not to exceed" clause
on top.  That doesn't seem to fit the intention of the law...but does it
meet the letter of the law?

Some options on what would be legal would be helpful.  They do not want
to go to fixed-cost because they believe that the contractor with the
low bid -- the only local guy, which is probably why he is lowest -- is
going to insist on too much money with a fixed cost contract to cover
his contingencies.  Total price tag is in the $15 to $20k range.

Thanks!

Tara

************************
Tara Riemer Jones, Ph.D.
Grants and Contracts Manager
Alaska SeaLife Center
(800) 224-2525 ext. 6343
(907) 224-6343 direct
(907) 224-6320 fax
xxxxxx@alaskasealife.org

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================