|HOME | CONTENTS | DISCUSSIONS | BLOG | QUICK-KITs| STATES|
Search WWW Search wifcon.com
|Modification versus new buy|
mjthomas Posted on
Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:34 am:
What is the threshhold whereas you perform a modification in lieu of a new buy. Here's my problem. The base award is for $1.5M per year. We have a moddifcation that is within the scope, but it will increase the award $1.5M. I know I have read somewhere based on the dollar amount of the initial award, I need to treat this a new buy. Thoughts???
ji20874 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:43 am:
Dollar amount is not a good indicator -- quantity is
better. Are you buying more of the same? Then you can do
Anonymous Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:50 am:
Need more specifics, how does doubling the amount still stay "within scope"? Is the original contract for labor hours i.e. 20,000 hours at x dollars per hour and the change is to increase the # of hours to 40,000? If so, that's not "within scope". Or is it for supplies i.e. 100 cars @ $15,000 each, change to increase quantity to 200 cars. Lacking the specifics, my gut reaction is this is a new acquisition.
Anonymous Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 07:54 am:
I see ji got his post in before I did, but if this is a sole source to the incumbent and you decide to go with the mod supported by an approved JOTFOC, remember the requirements of FAR Part 5, publicizing contract actions.
mjthomas Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 08:06 am:
Here's more specifics:
Anonymous Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 08:12 am:
ji20874 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 08:54 am:
Hey, it's under a GSA contract -- it's easy to issue a
new order, isn't it?
Is your current order written for fiber optic cable between
two buildings? If so, then adding the two additional
buildings is out of scope. Is your current order written for
ALL fiber optic needs of the installation? Then you might be
within scope by adding the two additional buildings.
joel hoffman Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 09:29 am:
I would consider it to be out of scope. You are doubling the actual scope of work and going beyond the intent of the original order. A comparable situation might be a contract to build two buildings, but now we need 4. If you procure while the current contractor is still there, you might obtain a cost break from it. If he is gone, there is no justification to mod his contract as in-scope, anyway. happy sails! joel
Anonymous Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 09:32 am:
Good example with the sewer line ji. And with using 8.4
of the FAR there's no need to synopsize.
mjthomas Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 09:59 am:
Thanks for all of the help!! I will issue as a new procurement.
Anonymous Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:54 am:
The sewer example is also a good lesson on requiring language. All too many try to specify beyond the range of a project's certainty. Specifying the length required when the real requirement is connectivity is an excellent example of requirements being a problem, not a solution.
ABOUT l CONTACT