Matt_mcginn

What a great article. Vern hit it out of the park again.

I have to agree with WifWaf too: "...supervisory responsibilities and interoffice politics be the focus of the rest of your career." The interoffice politics types are really good at it - they've honed their tactics and have been trained in bureaucracy.

Hear! Hear!

for those of us still trying, these wise words are still as applicable in 2022 as they were in the early 2000’s. Vern, you are a scholar and a gentleman and we appreciate YOU very much. Sincerely.

Quote

On 3/23/2022 at 6:59 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Specific interest in the role of the contracting officer seems to have peaked during the 1980s and waned over the course of the last two decades. I suspect it is because the position is diminished relative to those of program management officials, but there may be other reasons. The Clinton Administration's "reforms" did great damage to the contracting workforce.

 

 

@Vern EdwardsThis has been true in my experience. We're coming up on 30 years since those "reforms" and the successive Administrations' policies implemented during the wars that followed 9/11. The credibility of the role of the contracting officer is very low among my colleagues because they know there is no importance or respect of the role, since all they need is a rubber stamp to "get the contractor on board".

We are so desperate now that we've eliminated all standards to be eligible for the career (which many have argued is necessary and forward-thinking) and the current situation has revealed our real challenge (the one you've been writing about for two decades) - the old-timers have been getting out and we have no strategy to bring in the best and brightest when the work is not suited to their talents or skills. Moreover, we have no strategy to keep them since the training approach needs to fundamentally change. You and your company are to be saluted for your efforts and the important work you have been doing to elevate the level and type of training!

It is self-evident that the interest in the role of the contracting officer continues to decline while deficit spending and budget levels continues to soar.

@Vern Edwards That is definitely true - politicians are not leaders and are not sincere. Sadly, the bureaucracy happily contributes to choking the process as well, and every year there is more and more evidence that our country is happy to underwrite the waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in the zero-sum accounting game. Maybe its just apathy or having many more important things in our lives like filling up the gas tank, taking care of our kids, helping our parents.  The focus is only on obligating the ever-increasing dollars. $30T is no small matter and it would be good for every American to understand how we get inflation through Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy. And no, we we're not going to fix Hwy 14 because our Rep (and Senators) didn't not get it slipped in under "Community Project Funding" aka the new earmarks. Before they voted on the new trillion dollar bill they (and their staffs couldn't even read it).  #politics  BILLS-117sres20is.pdf (congress.gov)

Vern,

Absolutely not! Montmartre deserves to have a cool 70 year old like yourself hanging out all night long listening' to jazz...no curfew!!! Enjoy Paris - it's one of my favorite cities. Cheers.

On 8 April 2016 at 4:27 PM, Vern Edwards said:

I think what matters is changing jobs, not necessarily organizations. Personal situations aside, the reason to change jobs is to gain new knowledge and experience, and by gaining them to broaden your career opportunities. The more things you have done, the more things you can do.

Having said that, I have friends who stayed in the same job for long stretches and went from GS-5 to GS-15 or SES as fast as the law allowed. I changed jobs every two years on average. It worked for me. But it's not just a matter of frequency of change, its also (mainly) a matter of making wise job choices.

Good people are hard to find. If you're good, really good, you will be in demand, will have a lot of opportunities, and can call many if not most of the shots.

A relatively young SES friend of mine who is a career-long contracting pro was just chosen to be the Executive Director of an important high-technology department of defense organization. Not executive director of contracting--executive director of everything. She's worked in several places. She's good. Really good.

Vern,

I'd like to work with your friend. If you say good, Really good, then it is someone I want to know.  I have met few Federal servants who are "relatively young SES" and chosen to be executive director of anything...let alone everything.

There should be no confusion. Source selections for commercial items are conducted just like any other source selection. The only exception is the streamlined procedure for evaluation and solicitation in FAR Subpart 12.6, which does not address source selection plans one way or another.

If you are conducting a source selection for an acquisition of a commercial item valued in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, then you must comply with FAR Part 15 except as provided in FAR Subpart 12.6. FAR Part 15 does not require the preparation of a source selection plan for any acquisition. The requirement for a source selection plan is a matter of agency and contracting office policy and procedure, not governmentwide policy or procedure. If you want to know if you need a source selection plan for an acquisition of commercial items, see your agency FAR supplement and other policy and procedure directives.

Vern,

I know you're very busy, but did you have a chance to review DFARS 215.300 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures? Page 10, paragraph 2.2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures manual states, "An SSP is required for all best–value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15. The SSA shall approve the SSP before the final solicitation is issued."

Also, Chris M. wrote on 19 July, "FAR Part 12 buys, as a whole, are not exempt from the guidance, so if you are not using FAR Subpart 12.6, and the buy is greater than SAT, then you need to follow the guide and prepare a SSP."

/bt/

The basis of DoD's source selection procedures' requirement for an SSP is when you conduct a "best value, negotiated, competitive acquisitions under FAR Part 15". An example of agency policy/procedure covering this can be viewed at http://www.409csb.ar...9-12.pdf. Look at the reference cited for the requirement to have an SSP: "DoD Source Selection Procedures, 2.2 and AFARS 5115.303© " Also, it mentions that the preparer is the Program Office/Requiring Activity and legal and MOD (policy) will review it. The lawyers have never written an SSP and the policy people may not recognize why the SSP was included in the package. Still, the Army has the lawyers review it and provide a recommendation to the PARC. The KO and Contract Specialist spent very little time on the SSP and didn't review it too closely, so the lawyers have a field day with spelling, formatting comments. It is unfortunate, because the 51C (E6/E7) or GS-1102 specialist shouldn't be the target of the blame.

Cody's question is difficult to address on this forum, but I suspect Cody is asking since there is nobody at Cody's agency who knows how to answer his/her question. What agency you work for and what the policies are in that agency, is the basis of whether a source selection plan is required or not.

DFARS 215.300 states, "Contracting officers shall follow the principles and procedures in Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated March 4, 2011, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, when conducting negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing FAR part 15 procedures."

Therefore, if you work for DoD and are conducting a source selection for an acquisition of a commercial item valued in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, AND choose to NOT follow the streamlined procedure for evaluation and solicitation in FAR Subpart 12.6, you must have an approved Source Selection plan (emphasis added) apparently.

I wonder if the first response given to people like Cody on something like this is, "FAR Part 15 requires a Source Selection Plan". I have heard that said a couple of times in my office. The DoD source selection procedures give some bullets about what to put in a plan, but Army appears to not have a "streamlined template" and I haven't seen a consistent template being used. Maybe TIMBUK2 could direct Cody to the template he/she was referring to in his 17 July answer to Cody's question.

deleted

An interesting point in this discussion: based on the fact that the people "administering" the construction contract do not even know what the Payments clause says, each contractor is treated differently in performance due to arbitrary and capricious decisions made by those in charge (organizationally). Moreover, the same people in charge don't really care to know what the Payment clause authorizes in terms of payments.

It amazes me that incompetent contract staff supporting the incompetent engineering staff (usually engineers are the ones "in charge" on construction contracts that I have been involved with), persist in making up new terms and conditions concerning the payment of work items. I understand they are trying to use it as a negotiation position, but they don't have the authority to do so.

Vern, how did you handle situations in which the payments submitted by Contractors included costs that should not be paid for? Depending on the Agency rules, technical representatives usually approve percentage complete work and based on those agreements, an invoice is provided to the Contracting Officer for certification. It takes a savvy KO who sets time aside to review the invoiced work items and walks the job site regularly to determine if the amounts are accurate.

"There is a way for contracting personnel to escape their second-class citizenship, but it is a long, arduous professional journey. Most contracting people simply won't (or maybe can't) go that route."

I think this is a profound statement. I have only met a few contracts people in the Federal Gov't who are capable AND willing to go the route Vern is describing. Moreover, I have not met one 1102 in a Supervisory position who comes close to implementing some of the practices Vern recommends for starting the journey to make our craft credible as a professional part of the acquisition team. That is a problem! Escaping second-class citizenship is helped by having support from contracts leadership (maybe Chiefs or Supervisory Contract Specialists) who are competent and aggressive in pursuing a professional relationship with other departments. In my view, this does not exist...and the technical departments prefer it that way. When weak supervisors give in consistently on basic policy and procedures, technical representatives smell blood in the water and start to completely disregard contracting officer authority. I am friends with the construction engineers and designers I work with, so I can get them to level with me (we fight/argue a lot): They say, "Matt, it is really hard to change. We have dealt with so many contracts people who went from having a High School diploma and being a GS-5, to overnight being promoted to GS-11 or GS-12 and still only having a High School diploma. Why should I have to 'get permission' from a person who doesn't even have a clue what is being built out in the field? No, I'd rather get the lawyers to tell me whether or not I am breaking the law since the lawyers have the real training to back up their advice."

Joel and Don,

Thank you. Very interesting!

Best regards,

Matt

Matt, our RE's also farm out submittals when necessary, similar to the Air Force, It depends upon the level of technical expertise in the RE office. Most are ACO's. Some might work for an Area Engineer, who may be the ACO. We occasionally have an 1102 ACO in the field office, more likely on cost contracts.

I'm curious. Why does NAVFAC incorporate the design into the contract? For instance, what happens if there is a design error or omission in the design-builder's design that has to be fixed? Does someone initiate an engineering change, change order (or whatever term NAVFAC uses for a change to the contract)? How does it get incorporated into the design or contract? If it costs more to fix, does the government pay? Time extensions, etc.? Is there any room for Contractor flexibility in the final design?

Yes, I was an ACO.

Joel,

Ok - so the last statement of my previous post accurately describes the way ACOE's operates. That is interesting - I would be very interested to learn more about the ACOE's development plan. Do they take Engineers and then train them in CON classes to Level 1, 2 and 3? In NAVFAC all ACO and warrant authority is with an individual occupying an 1102 or a CEC officer billet. Warrant authority being within Acquisition then, civilian engineers are appointed as Contracting Officer's Authorized Representatives (COAR) and that authority is delegated by the CCO. This means having the authority to negotiate agreements on in-scope changes up to a certain threshold (capped at $100k) and processing the changes in the End To End procurement systems (eContracts, FIS and SPS).

With regard to your question about final design, NAVFAC accepts the final design and incoporates it into the contract to formally establish the agreed upon design and aims to not allow the contractor to re-think what they've designed as they get to the end of the project. Many disputes were occuring when the contractor would argue after design that they had made an error which exceeded the RFP and tried to "strip out" that work. Under the NAVFAC incorporation of final design clause, the contractor is not relieved from errors or ommissions and maintains the risk to deliver the project in accordance with an order of precedence clause in the contract. Notwithstanding this NAVFAC procedure, there are constant contract administration battles that start after award and continue well after BOD. I am sure you have fought many of the same battles to ensure the Government's interests are upheld.

Matt, I was re-reading your post and it struck me as rather presumptuous of you to assert that only a "Contracting Officer" has the training or ability to approve construction or design-build submittals or to know whether or not you are approving a "variance", resulting in a mod to the contract. It is especially amusing that you state that you first obtain "Technical Gov't Rep." review before approving the submittal.

You insinuated that a non KO will probably approve a variance, resulting in a constructive change. There are actually non-1102, highly trained personnel out there who can interpret contracts, using the general rules of contract interpretation and can determine whether or not a submittal meets the technical, administrative (e.g., Buy American act) contract requirements) and other contractual requirements, can approve conforming submittals, disapprove non-conforming submittials and can get the ACO or PCO to take appropriate action on variances. Our general rules are straightforward. The authorized COR can review and approve conforming submittals, disapprove non-conforming submittals and is instructed to send a variance that may be desirable to the ACO and/or KO for approval. The COR involves Office of Counsel, the PCO, Engineering and others when necessary, in making decisions and recommendations for the appropriate action to take on submittals.

I don't remember everything that I wrote in the link that you provided and can't follow it on this particular Internet connection. It is the Contract Administration Plan for the Corps' Huntsville Engineering and Support Center's Chemical Demilitarization Directorate. The Chm-Demil Program is a Category I. DoD Major Defense Acquisition Program. The CA Plan was adapted under my supervision and involvement many years ago from the Mobile District Contract Administration Manual. I was the principle author and editor of that Manual back in the early 1990's. I rewrote and expanded the original Mobile CAB Manual , ehich had been updated a couple times by others since back to at least the 1973 time frame. It has been adapted by many other Corps Districts over the years. That Manual has since been updated by my successors.

If your organization is limited to only the KO approving construction submittals, then I'd say that either your KO's don't have enough to do otherwise or conversely, I can see why they are overworked, doing stuff that others should be able to be trained to do.

Sorry about being a grouch here. But it is ludicrous to assume that only an 1102 Contracting Officer is qualified to perform construction submittal reviews and actions. I, and other professional engineers (and registered architects) like me and before me, have been performing routine and non-routine contract admin functions for many more years than DAWIA has been in existence. I was writing, bidding, negotiating and administering construction contracts , mods , and claims long before I came to work for the Corps of Engineers and extensively since then and yes - others and I were and are fully qualified DAWIA Level III with enough business credits to qualify as COR's, Contracting Officers/ACO's and/or 1102's.

P.S., our Directorate's Resident Engineers were warranted Contracting Officers, assigned as ACO's in addition to being COR's at the time the Contract Admin Plan iyou linked to was written.

Joel,

I just read your reply from over a month ago. There was no insinuation written in my post - I reject your grouchiness too. :-)

I was asking the question because I really do not know what is happening currently at construction offices. In my office (Navy), no submittals are received by the ACO, with the exception of preconstruction admin (Bonds, Insurance). Wrt D-B, the Final Design is approved/accepted, signed by the Resident Engineer and then forwarded to the ACO for modification incorporating the design into the contract. A good friend of mine, in an Airforce construction office, says that the ACO receives ALL submittals, farms them out to the respective technical rep. with a buck slip, and then monitors to return within the prescribed time. Go figure. Recognize too that in D-B many submittals are Gov't surveillance only.

I agree with you that PE's and Registered Architects are skilled and very capable in the contruction contract administration arena. I have met a lot of engineers who have business sense and a good handle on case law and precedent, and they make the decisions when it comes to every real contractual action on a project. In fact, many in my organization have snatched the responsibilities defined under the acquisition system definition of "Contracting Officer". For example, the UFGS have the term scattered throughout and it seems to lose its meaning. This has led to some confusion, in my opinion, about what position "Contracting Officer" holds in the organization. I am sure Vern Edwards has a clear idea about this issue, and possibly others on this forum, but they are not in positions of power that set policy and organizational structure. I see contracting taking a back seat way too much. On the other hand, there are many 1102's I have come across who are perfectly happy to not have to deal with the contractor; negotiate, bargain, make fast business decisions, push the contracting processes. Instead, an 8-5 gig with little hassle or debate throughout the day is their preferred course.

So, from what you stated, you are an Engineer, with Level III DAWIA in contracting, and a former Division Level Chief of Construction? I understand the ACOE is set up in this way across the enterprise - ACO usually means an engineer who is cross-trained and fully certified to execute Contracting Officer duties in accordance with appointment from the contracting authority.

Polling the construction KO's out there.

1) Do contracting officers in the agencies you work in, always receive the submittals, obtain Technical Gov't Rep. review and then approve/return to the contractor? In the USACE's Contract Administration guide found at: http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/chemde/cap/chp9.pdf

the Resident Engineer, as the COR, signs all transmittal sheets. What if the contract specifies the contracting officer as the Government's approval authority?

2) Are there certain submittals which follow the contracting officer approval process above, but others that do not? For instance, construction submittals (i.e. safety plan, slump test, lab results) which are obviously reviewed by the technical team?

3) How do contracting officers out there handle the situation of variances? UFGS 01 33 describes these and the basis is the contractor submitting substitutions for specific types of materials required by the contract. If submittals are not approved by the contracting officer, it seems there might be a situation where a variance is constructively approved, without contracting officer involvement whatsoever.

Interested to hear how contruction KO's have handled this and set things up on new contracts at the Pre-Con.

Joel,

I want to make sure I understand what you mean by variable costs (costs which vary based upon amount of work) in the case of a D-B contractor who has not mobilized on site (the reason is due to the delay cause). It seems the only costs that should be contemplated for providing relief is:

Daily FOOH - fixed portions (as per your post): salary of staff, equipment, vehicles, etc.

Design costs: salary of A-E subcontractor & other misc. costs

HOOH % rate on the total

Also included in settlement is time extension - not necessarily all of the days of the delay period.

Given that you have experience negotiating and settling modifications for the above, can you provide advice of "what to look out for" or other helpful information to make sure a fair adjustment is made?

I've determined that the precedent for Eichleay has not been met. Therefore, it seems to me a negotiation of what fixed costs are allocable for the daily field office cost and other misc. costs associated with field staff, design staff. Is there ever a situation where HOOH as a % is not added onto the total of actual costs?

Matt:

I have not been contacted and I do not wish to be contacted. I am temperamentally unsuited for a job within the bureaucracy. I am, among several other personal faults, much too impatient. In any case, there are not that many positions of real power in contracting. Administrator of OFPP ordinarily is not a powerful job unless you have the full and active backing of a reform-minded president, like Steve Kelman had with Clinton-Gore. Mr. Obama has said nothing that would lead me to believe that he understands or cares about the kinds of personnel-related changes that are needed to fix acquisition, and I could not care less about pursuing legislative procedural reforms like FASA and Clinger-Cohen.

What we need more than anything right now are changes in personnel policy. We need to hire fewer 1102s and more 1105s and 1106s. We need to raise hiring and promotion standards for 1102s. We need to develop a centrally-controlled, demanding, and stringent contracting officer appointment system. We also need to overhaul the government's training institutions--FAI and DAU. Longer term, we need to overhaul the FAR, its promulgation procedures, and its supporting bureaucracy. And we need a contracting think tank.

Thanks for the kind thoughts. But I would be a disaster in a presidential appointee job, and I have no interest in a civil service job. Teaching and writing is what I do best, and I'm going to stick to those endeavors.

Vern

Vern,

I appreciate your candid response...and totally understand your position. Hopefully there are some leaders like you who can work towards putting together the things you mentioned. Especially the think tank and personnel policy initiatives!! Wishing you all the best in the new year with your current endeavors.

As the chief of a contracting office, I would insist that contracting always write the acquisition plan. He or she who writes the acquisition plan gets the first shot at steering the destiny of the acquisition. As a leader, I would want that power and influence. I wouldn't want to be just an implementer. Anybody can do that. I would want to be at the helm. I would want the power to say: This is that way that it ought to go. I'd be damned if I would cede that power and influence to anyone else.

When I was an intern, the interns in my program jumped at the chance to write the acquisition plan. It was considered to be a singular opportunity, especially on big procurements. You got to go to the meetings, to meet the bigwigs, to give presentations and be seen, to impress, and to lay the foundation for your professional future. Hell, I knew interns who wanted to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. I was one of them. We would put a block on the signature page: Prepared by: __________________________.

But don't listen to me. I only went from GS-05 to GM-15 in the minimum time allowed by law. Writing acquisition plans was one of the ways I did it.

To all you interns: Seize every opportunity to excel. That's how you get ahead. Turn that grungy acquisition plan into a masterpiece of acquisition planning. Show the bosses what you can do. BE the plan! Let everybody else cut and paste your work.

Vern:

The question is whether or not you have been contacted or have the ambition to really change things by taking a post at OMB or as a CAO at an agency. Your comment about acquisition plans sums it up - you have walked in the shoes of GS-14 and GS-15 acquisition executives and could probably bring some much needed backbone...and to really demand a seat at the table and LEAD. Typically the debate that I've seen over acq planning comes down to the Program Manager, who is responsible for the acquisition plan, simply dumping the already decided acquisition strategy to the contracting dept. for output in MS Word format. That means it has nothing to do with shaping the destiny of the acquisition anymore, but is simply a typing assignment instead. If the Chief is not doing as you did - insisting that contracts takes a leadership role in acquisition planning, then it really doesn't matter what 1102s think about "This is the way that it ought to go."

That being said, I do think there are still some people out there who are like you and want to write everything: the statement of work, the acquisition plan, the source selection plan, and the source selection decision document. Hell, I'm one of those guys still (mostly SOWs). It makes technical specialists very upset when an 1102 seeks the helm and influences the process though.

I have yet to see someone like you, in a position of power in Government, who could affect real change in the acquisition arena and also establish a framework that allows young 1102s to lay the foundation for a professional future. You are always talking about taking pride in doing real work; something you can be proud of. I think you would be successful at really shaking up the status quo.

That 10% profit is fair and reasonable.

If a contractor doesn't ask for money when a change is made, it is not a change.

That contracting must always prepare the acquisition plan.

Matt:

Many officials can obligate the government besides contracting officers. When a personnel officer signs a form making a person an employee, he or she is obligating the government. FAR does not say that only contracting officers can obligate the government. It says that only contracting officers can sign contracts. See FAR 1.601. In saying that, it is referring to the procurement contracts described in 31 U.S.C. ? 6303. The government enters into other types of contracts, as well, for which contracting officers have no authority.

Vern:

Got it - I guess I did misunderstand when I heard you say that during one of your talks. I read 1.601 and 1.602 again. Thank you.

Perhaps I should start a new thread concerning the second question I asked you. Or, if you want to email WE are interested to know. I think the only way to change the federal acquisition system is to get competent, passionate leaders who care about the subject, into the key positions, rather than political cronies. Yes We Can.

Vern,

I've heard you talk about the myth you mentioned before in person. Instead of having to wait for Don's report of myths and facts, it would be very helpful to understand what you mean exactly. Would you please explain why this is a myth please?

To go further, since you are imparting your wisdom by providing this myth, are you pointing this out so current federal contracting officers will stop perpetuating this myth? If so, what are your recommendations for accomplishing this? Each time someone says this, are we to correct them politely and explain all the others who can actually obligate the Government?

BTW - your blogs are great. Has anyone from the president-elect's camp contacted you yet for OMB acq czar post yet? How about one of the other key agency CAO positions? Probably does not pay enough for you though, right? I am sure most of us on the wifcon forum would support your nomination to a key position of influence. At least then it would not just be website recommendations.

Cheers,

Matt

Joel,

I just read your member profile. Disregard my last question. Obviously, you know D-B construction and the USACE processes.

Dear Joel,

Thank you for your complete opinion.

You asked "Regarding "design costs", what are you referring to? Not enough information to formulate any opinion or advice."

In the case of a D-B construction project, typically an A-E is teamed with a GC and there is therefore Design-specific costs associated with a delay, due to acceleration of design submittals so as to not impact critical path. Many times, accelerations happen outside the sphere of influence of contracting and then when all is said and done, there is more or less a number already worked out between the PM and the GC for costs associated. Tricky part is that another person's name is on the SF-30 signature line. While I understand and appreciate the myth Vern mentioned in another post "A Contracting Officer is the only one who can obligate the Gov't", certainly an 1102 IS the only one that technical staff wants to have sign so that their butt is not on the line.

I also agree with your comments about constructive suspensions vs. a notification of suspension. Different schools of thought appear to be out there and I do not accept the advice that it might not be advantageous to mention the FAR clause and notify the contractor accordingly. ANY reasonable person should be able to see what you pointed out - (1) there is potentially worse liability if a notice of suspension is not issued and (2) all it takes is a constructive suspension for the contractor to have entitlement to request an adjustment.

Joel, I can't remember at the moment - are you current or former Army/Navy construction CO by chance? Or are you with GSA as your signature indicates (GSA PBS has a "Sail On" mantra on everything) ?

FAR 52.242-14 states:

(a) The Contracting Officer may order the Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt all or any part of the work of this contract for the period of time that the Contracting Officer determines appropriate for the convenience of the Government.

( If the performance of all or any part of the work is, for an unreasonable period of time, suspended, delayed, or interrupted (1) by an act of the Contracting Officer in the administration of this contract, or (2) by the Contracting Officer?s failure to act within the time specified in this contract (or within a reasonable time if not specified), an adjustment shall be made for any increase in the cost of performance of this contract (excluding profit) necessarily caused by the unreasonable suspension, delay, or interruption, and the contract modified in writing accordingly. However, no adjustment shall be made under this clause for any suspension, delay, or interruption to the extent that performance would have been so suspended, delayed, or interrupted by any other cause, including the fault or negligence of the Contractor, or for which an equitable adjustment is provided for or excluded under any other term or condition of this contract.

Question #1 - If it has been determined that the delay is both excusable (Defaults clause) and compensable (Suspension of Work clause), what is the best way to isolate the costs that should be considered for providing relief of actual costs for FOOH, Design and/or HOOH as a result of the delay? Typically contractors try to load up a cost pool to come up with a daily rate and then multiply times the number of days of delay. However, if there is no idle equipment and only very limited labor costs as a result of suspension, is there anything due the contractor?

Question #2 - What would be the reasons to NOT issue a suspension of work, if you know there is going to be a delay in giving NTP or allowing some part of critical path works to commence? Isn't the contractor already on notice about suspension at the convenience of the Gov't, by virtue of the clause being in the contract?