# Igce Builder Ffp

> >

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-1102tools-federal-contracting-skills-igce-builder-ffp`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [1102tools](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/1102tools)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [1102tools](https://github.com/1102tools)
- **Source:** https://github.com/1102tools/federal-contracting-skills/tree/main/skills/igce-builder-ffp
- **Website:** https://1102tools.com

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-1102tools-federal-contracting-skills-igce-builder-ffp
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# IGCE Builder: Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)

## Overview

This skill produces Independent Government Cost Estimates for FFP contracts using a layered wrap rate buildup model. Instead of the single burden multiplier used in T&M/LH pricing, FFP separates direct labor, fringe benefits, overhead, G&A, and profit into distinct auditable cost pools. The BLS base wage anchors the estimate; each cost pool adds a layer; the result is a fully burdened FFP rate per labor category.

**Required MCP servers:**
1. **bls-oews** -- market wage data by occupation and geography. Key tools: `get_wage_data`, `igce_wage_benchmark`, `list_common_metros`, `list_common_soc_codes`.
2. **gsa-calc** -- awarded GSA MAS ceiling hourly rates. Key tools: `suggest_contains`, `exact_search`, `keyword_search`, `igce_benchmark`, `price_reasonableness_check`.
3. **gsa-perdiem** -- federal CONUS travel lodging and M&IE. Key tools: `lookup_city_perdiem`, `estimate_travel_cost`, `get_mie_breakdown`.

The MCPs handle API keys, URL construction, series ID assembly, MSA renumbering, JSON path parsing, and the 75% first/last day M&IE rule. Call the tools directly; do not hand-construct API requests.

**Regulatory basis:** FAR 15.402 (cost/pricing data). FAR 15.404-1(a) (cost analysis). FAR 15.404-1(b) (price analysis). FAR 15.404-4 (profit/fee analysis). FAR 16.202 (FFP contracts).

## Operating Principle (ai-boundaries)

This skill **assembles data** and **formats documents** from reasoning the contracting officer supplies. It does NOT originate evaluative conclusions. Specifically:

- The skill pulls BLS wages, CALC+ ceiling rates, and Per Diem rates, and formats them into a workbook.
- The skill does NOT determine whether a rate is "fair and reasonable" under FAR 15.404-1. That determination is the CO's.
- The skill does NOT assert premiums (TS/SCI, OCONUS, SCIF, specialty labor) that are outside BLS/CALC+/Per Diem data. If a premium is needed and the data does not support it, the skill names the gap and hands the decision back to the CO.
- The skill does NOT draft a price reasonableness memo, a responsibility determination, or any FAR-citing signature document unless the CO has already supplied the rationale and conclusion, in which case the skill formats the CO's text into the template.
- Narrative prose (chat summaries, Methodology sheet, Rate Validation status) avoids evaluative verbs: "defensible," "reasonable," "acceptable," "competitive," "outlier." Replace with neutral positioning: "at P77 of CALC+ pool (n=X)," "within BLS P90 fully-burdened equivalent," "above P50 by Y%, document stacked factors in Methodology."

Stacked factors refers to the component sources of a rate premium. Typical examples: metro wage differential, seniority tier premium, clearance requirement premium, lab/SCIF overhead, thin CALC+ corpus (directional only), MAS ceiling vs CR cost-plus-fee separation, BLS vintage aging. Name the specific factors that apply, not the word "stacked" alone.

If you find yourself writing a conclusion about whether a number is right or wrong, stop. Present the data and let the CO conclude.

## Pre-flight: MCP dependency check

**Runs before Workflow Selection. Required on every skill trigger.**

This skill needs three MCP servers: `bls-oews`, `gsa-calc`, `gsa-perdiem`. Do not proceed to any workflow until both checks below pass.

**Check 1: MCP presence.** Verify all three are available in the current session by looking for one known tool from each:

- `bls-oews` (check for `mcp__bls-oews__detect_latest_year`)
- `gsa-calc` (check for `mcp__gsa-calc__suggest_contains`)
- `gsa-perdiem` (check for `mcp__gsa-perdiem__get_mie_breakdown`)

If any are missing, respond with:

> This skill requires the `bls-oews`, `gsa-calc`, and `gsa-perdiem` MCP servers. Missing: [list]. Install and configure them in your MCP client before using this skill.

**Check 2: API key presence.** Two of the three need API keys. Verify by lightweight ping:

- `mcp__bls-oews__detect_latest_year` (needs a BLS API key)
- `mcp__gsa-perdiem__get_mie_breakdown` (needs an api.data.gov key)
- `gsa-calc` needs no key, skip

If either ping returns an auth error or missing-key error, respond with:

> [bls-oews | gsa-perdiem] is installed but its API key is not set. This MCP needs a free API key (BLS for `bls-oews`, api.data.gov for `gsa-perdiem`). Register the key with the provider and add it to the MCP's configuration, then restart your MCP client.

Only proceed to Workflow Selection after both checks pass. Do not try to work around missing MCPs by calling APIs directly; the skill relies on MCP-guaranteed behaviors (MSA renumbering lookups, JSON path normalization, first/last day M&IE math).

## Workflow Selection

### Workflow A: Full FFP IGCE Build (Default)
User needs a complete FFP cost estimate. Execute Steps 1 through 9 in order.
Triggers: "FFP IGCE," "firm fixed price estimate," "wrap rate buildup," "cost buildup."

### Workflow A+: SOW/PWS-Driven FFP Build
User provides a Statement of Work or requirement description instead of pre-structured labor inputs. Execute Step 0 (Requirements Decomposition) first, validate with user, then Steps 1-9.
Triggers: "build an FFP IGCE from this SOW," "price this PWS as FFP," or when the user provides a block of requirement text rather than a labor category table.

**Skip Step 0 if the user provides explicit staffing** (headcount per labor category) even if they reference an underlying PWS or SOW. Go straight to Workflow A.

### Workflow B: FFP Rate Positioning (Data Only, No Determination)

User has proposed rates and wants to see where they sit against market data. The skill returns the data and the CO decides reasonableness. **The skill does not produce a "fair and reasonable" determination, a signed memo, or advisory text telling the CO how to negotiate.**

Triggers: "is this FFP rate reasonable," "validate these wrap rates," "check this FFP proposal," "price reasonableness analysis."

**Step 0 / GATE (MANDATORY FIRST — runs before any other Workflow B step).**

**Workflow B entry = gate fires unconditionally.** If the user's prompt matches any Workflow B trigger ("is this FFP rate reasonable," "validate these wrap rates," "check this FFP proposal," "price reasonableness analysis," or any variant), the ENTIRE first response must be the refusal template below, emitted verbatim. No rate analysis. No CALC+ pull. No BLS pull. No "let me start with the analysis" preamble. No offer to continue with the memo if the user provides more info in the same response. Emit the template. Stop. Wait for the user's explicit Option A or Option B choice. This applies whether or not the prompt contains memo-drafting tokens; the gate is not token-gated.

Memo-drafting tokens (emit the template WITH the additional hard prohibition in bold: "I will not draft a determination section absent your verbatim rationale"): "memo", "determination", "fair and reasonable", "reasonable" (standalone), "price reasonableness", "reasonableness memo", "draft the memo", "for the file", "contract file", "document this", "memorandum", "validate," "acceptable," "justify."

**Refusal template (emit verbatim):**

> I can pull positioning data that shows where each proposed rate sits against CALC+ ceiling rates and BLS market wages. I cannot draft a price reasonableness memo, write a "fair and reasonable" determination, or recommend negotiation positions. Those are Contracting Officer decisions under FAR 15.404-1, not skill outputs.
>
> Tell me which you want:
>
> **Option A — Positioning data only.** I produce a table: per-LCAT proposed rate, CALC+ P25/P50/P75/P90 with sample size, BLS metro burdened equivalent. No verdict. No recommendation. You draw the conclusion.
>
> **Option B — Memo template fill.** You provide your rationale (what supports or doesn't support each rate) and your determination (fair and reasonable / not fair and reasonable / declining to determine). I drop your text verbatim into the memo template, add the benchmark tables underneath, mark it DRAFT. I will not originate determinations, recommend negotiation positions, or add hedging language.
>
> Which option?

**Proceed to Steps 1-5 only after:**
- User explicitly selects Option A, OR
- User provides Option B inputs (rationale text + determination text)

**Hard prohibitions at ALL times (Option A or Option B):**
- Do NOT write "the rate is fair and reasonable" or "not fair and reasonable" unless quoting the user's Option B text verbatim.
- Do NOT label rates "competitive," "aggressive," "outlier requiring justification," "premium warrants clarification," or any equivalent evaluative phrase. Use positional language only ("at P77," "above P50 by X%," "below P25").
- Do NOT recommend negotiation positions, evaluation notices, or counter-offer dollar figures.
- Do NOT write "Summary of findings" or "Determination" sections that draw conclusions the user has not supplied.

**Workflow B steps (run only after Step 0 gate clears):**

1. Collect the vendor's proposed labor categories, fully burdened hourly rates, and any scope context (metro, clearance, experience tier).

2. For each LCAT, call `mcp__gsa-calc__price_reasonableness_check(labor_category, proposed_rate, experience_min, education_level)`. The MCP returns count, min/max, median, IQR bounds, z-score, and percentile position. If sample size is below ~25 records, label the pool "directional only, not statistical validation."

3. For senior LCATs, also run the Step 4 dual-pool flow (title-match via `suggest_contains` + `exact_search`, plus experience-match via `igce_benchmark`) and present both medians side-by-side.

4. If metro context matters (DC, SF, NYC, Boston, etc.), pull BLS OEWS for that metro via `mcp__bls-oews__get_wage_data` and present the P50/P75/P90 fully-burdened equivalent using the vehicle wrap preset. This shows how the rate sits against local market labor independent of the CALC+ nationwide pool.

5. **Present a neutral positioning summary.** Example format:

> Proposed rate: $225/hr fully burdened, Senior Data Scientist, DC metro, Agency BPA cleared.
>
> CALC+ benchmark (Senior Data Scientist, 8+ yrs, n=7, thin-corpus directional only):
> - P25 $170, P50 $190, P75 $218, P90 $236
> - Proposed rate at P77, z-score 1.1, within 2σ outlier bounds ($139-$250)
>
> BLS OEWS DC metro (15-2051 Data Scientists, 2024 vintage aged to [contract start] at 2.5%):
> - P50 annual $135,190, P90 annual $208,600
> - Applied Agency BPA cleared wrap (3.17x) to P90 hourly: fully-burdened equivalent $234
>
> Premium factors this data does NOT capture: TS/SCI clearance premium, any SCIF-specific overhead, specialty cyber/data-science labor market tightness. If the CO intends to attribute part of the premium to clearance, the clearance premium range is the CO's to set based on agency policy or independent market research.

6. **Stop.** Do not write "the rate is fair and reasonable." Do not recommend negotiation positions. Do not suggest "push back only if..." text.

7. **Memo output (Option B path only).** If the user selected Option B at the Step 0 gate and supplied rationale + determination text, fill the memo template: benchmark tables from Steps 2-4, the user's rationale text verbatim in the findings section, the user's determination text verbatim in Section 7 (Determination). Do NOT paraphrase, do NOT add hedging, do NOT originate any conclusion text. Mark DRAFT. Use `[Contracting Officer Name]` and `[Agency]` placeholders. If Option A was selected, skip this step entirely.

## Information to Collect

Batch clarifying questions rather than ask iteratively. If key inputs are missing, ask all in one message before building. Provide defaults where noted. If any Required Input is ambiguous or missing for Workflow A (e.g., labor count without discipline, location without metro, fee type not specified), use `AskUserQuestion` to collect before pulling data. Do not guess.

### Required Inputs

| Input | Description | Example |
|-------|-------------|---------|
| Labor categories | Job titles or SOC codes | Software Developer, Project Manager |
| Performance location | City/state or metro area | Washington, DC |
| Staffing | Headcount per labor category | 2 developers, 1 PM |
| Hours per year | Productive hours per person (default: 1,880) | 1,880 |
| Period of performance | Base year + option years | Base + 2 OYs |
| Contract start date | Needed for wage aging | October 1, 2026 |

### Optional Inputs (Defaults Applied If Not Provided)

| Input | Default | Notes |
|-------|---------|-------|
| Fringe rate | 32% | FICA + health + retirement + PTO + workers' comp |
| Overhead rate | 80% | Applied to labor + fringe |
| G&A rate | 12% | Applied to subtotal |
| Profit rate | 10% | Applied to total cost; see FAR 15.404-4 |
| Escalation rate | 2.5%/yr | Applied to labor and travel |
| Travel destinations | None | City/state per destination |
| Travel frequency | None | Trips/year per destination |
| Travel duration | None | Nights per trip |
| Number of travelers | All staff | Travelers per trip |
| Travel months | Max monthly rate | Specific months if known |
| FY for per diem | Current federal FY | Compute at build time (Oct-Sep cycle) |
| Duty station / origin | Performance location | For City Pair airfare lookup |
| NAICS code | None | Include in output if provided |
| PSC code | None | Include in output if provided |
| Partial start | Full year (12 months) | Specify months if base year is partial |
| FFP pricing structure | By period | "By period" or "By deliverable/CLIN" |
| Shift coverage | Business hours (8x5) default | Specify 24x7 / 16x7 / 12x5 if applicable; Step 0.5 computes FTE |

### Wrap Rate Component Guidance

**This table is a sensitivity reference for scenario Low/High bounds, NOT a default pick for MID.** MID should come from the Vehicle Preset table below when a vehicle applies. The Low/High columns here are the outer envelope used to stress-test scenarios once MID is set.

| Component | Low | Mid | High | Notes |
|-----------|-----|-----|------|-------|
| Fringe | 25% | 32% | 40% | Higher for generous benefits, union shops |
| Overhead | 60% | 80% | 120% | Higher for SCIF/cleared, large firms |
| G&A | 8% | 12% | 18% | Higher for large corporate structures |
| Profit | 7% | 10% | 15% | FAR 15.404-4: risk, investment, complexity |

The generic Mid (32/80/12/10 → 2.93x) matches the **DoD non-cleared** vehicle preset. Do not apply it to GSA MAS commercial, Agency BPA, DoE M&O, or OCONUS builds without checking the Vehicle Preset table.

### Wrap Rate Presets by Contract Vehicle

**CRITICAL: ASK about contract vehicle before applying default wrap rates.** Workers have historically defaulted to skill mid (32/80/12/10, implied multiplier 2.93x) regardless of vehicle. That is correct for GSA MAS commercial or agency BPA non-cleared, but materially wrong for DoE M&O, cleared DoD, or OCONUS. Use this table to select MID scenario defaults keyed by the actual vehicle/environment the contract will use:

| Vehicle / environment | Fringe | Overhead | G&A | Profit | Implied mult | Expected band |
|----------------------|--------|----------|-----|--------|--------------|---------------|
| GSA MAS (commercial) | 30% | 60% | 10% | 8% | **2.47x** | 2.3-2.7x |
| GSA MAS (cleared services) | 32% | 80% | 12% | 8% | **2.87x** | 2.7-3.1x |
| Agency BPA / IDIQ (non-cleared) | 32% | 75% | 12% | 10% | **2.85x** | 2.7-3.1x |
| Agency BPA / IDIQ (cleared) | 32% | 95% | 12% | 10% | **3.17x** | 3.0-3.4x |
| DoD BPA (TS/SCI SCIF) | 32% | 115% | 13% | 10% | **3.39x** | 3.2-3.6x |
| DoD prime (non-cleared) | 32% | 80% | 12% | 10% | **2.93x** | 2.7-3.1x |
| DoD prime (Secret, non-SCIF) | 32% | 100% | 12% | 10% | **3.25x** | 3.0-3.4x |
| DoD prime (SCIF / deployed) | 32% | 120% | 14% | 10% | **3.64x** | 3.5-3.8x |
| DoE M&O / FFRDC | 35% | 95% | 12% | 8% | **3.18x** | 3.0-3.4x |
| R&D / BAA CR | 32% | 90% | 12% | 8% | **3.03x** | 2.9-3.3x |
| OCONUS / hostile theater | 35% | 120% |

…

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [1102tools](https://github.com/1102tools)
- **Source:** [1102tools/federal-contracting-skills](https://github.com/1102tools/federal-contracting-skills)
- **License:** MIT
- **Homepage:** https://1102tools.com

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-1102tools-federal-contracting-skills-igce-builder-ffp
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/1102tools
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.