Comment on FR Doc # 2010-24104

FAR Case 2009-043 I congratulate the attempt to clarify what is and isn’t considered a Time & Material (T&M)/Labor Hour (LH). However, the proposed language “Time-and-materials contracts and labor-hour contracts are not fixed-price contracts”, in my opinion, does not (1) clarify the issue. (2) nor, address the fact that what is actually happening is the Contracting Officer is using a Fixed Price Level of Effort (FP LOE) contract without the appropriate approval. When a Contracting Officer uses a fixed loaded labor rate and a fixed number of labor hours the contract type can be considered either a T&M/LH (FAR 16.6) or a Fixed Price Level of Effort (FP LOE) (FAR 16.207). Since, the LOE T&M/LH vs FFP issue not only affects contract actions under FAR Part 8 and 12, but also FAR Part 13, 14, and 15, recommend adding a definition to Part 16 that clearly defines a LOE contract and identifies that a LOE contract type is considered to be either T&M/LH, FP LOE or a Cost Plus Term (FAR 16.6(d)(2). Otherwise, Contracting Officers are likely to read the proposed change to FAR Part 16 as something they already knew and continue calling LOE contracts FFP.