traipse

I'm sorry I offended you, ji20874. I don't mean to scold you, I'm just commenting on your action. We seem to approach our work differently. I know that if another CO like me showed up and said that they thought that I might have stepped in it, the last thing I would say to them would be to shut up. Your experience and training told you that you didn't need counsel's advice. In my opinion, that's a heck of a risk considering the responsibility you bear. If it goes badly for you, I doubt you'll be as convinced of your own infallibility. Your mod may very well be fine, but in my opinion your decision was not. You had 5 minutes for a chat with counsel and you chose to go it alone. You most certainly did not try to consider everything.

That's funny, and perhaps ironic. You'll get that reaction about a great many things in the contracting. Some things don't need much tending to. Either the required clauses or agency templates have already addressed it, or it may not apply to your type of contracting. Either way, there are a great number of things that you won't have to look at each and every time you draft a solicitation or administer a contract. But definitely look into it. It may be that your shop is overlooking something. Don't be surprised though if you find that you are in 100% compliance and no one in the shop is doing anything at all to make sure you stay that way. I love new people to the profession. So serious. Hey Contracting: Do you think Joe Montana was a great quarterback because he knew the rulebook better than all the other players? Consider that as you learn the profession, it will help you tremendously.

No offense, but I think that posting it here for everyone to see made that fairly obvious. You went off the page and did your own thing. I applaud that in a CO. Too many COs think that the FAR or the court or their in-house counsel can tell them how to do good contracting. But, again, no offense, it appears as though you did it without considering all of the variables. Considering them now doesn't really count, now does it? Even "no-year" funds have rules. Do you know what they are? I don't mean go look them up and post a quote from some rulebook somewhere now. I mean, did you know them when you signed your modification? I've been a CO for many, many years. I have a lot of experience and an unlimited warrant. I sign for many millions of dollars every month. Even I don't have it all memorized, and despite our profession's prediliction toward sanctimony and a little self-righteousness, I don't mind asking counsel for their opinion, even if I don't agree with it. CO's that break new ground? Good for them. CO's that do it without considering all the implications of their actions? They'll get theirs eventually. But those that make their decisions first and then think of reasons why it was OK. Well, you can form your own opinion about them. I'll disagree with you. Since bringing this up I've thought of many things that should be considered before entering into an action like this. Forgive me for saying so, but it seems to me that in your case you had plenty of time to ask counsel at least for their opinion. Even posting a question to wifcon about it will at least give you some different perspectives. This one may come back to bite you, but it probably won't. One thing that is certain about the profession is that there are a lot of mistakes made out there and only a tiny fraction of a fraction ever become an issue.

Your references presume an active contract. We're talking about one in which no work is being performed. I'm not sure that relating the suspension to a change helps support the validity of using the original appropriation. But Joel brings up an interesting issue. Is such an extension within scope or out-of-scope? I know we're discussing this after the fact. ji20874, what did Forest Service counsel say? Did they raise any of these issues?

I agree with Vern that a supplemental agreement for the additional work is the appropriate course of action. I can't think of a reason that you need to extend the contract's completion date, just make clear in your modification and your documentation what you're doing and why. You explained it very well here (notwithstanding the language precision issue Vern mentions) so you'll be able to do it in your mod. I've CO'd many construction projects where there was something to add well after the completion date for one reason or another. You're within scope so you are well within your authority to agree to the additional work and set a date for completion of that work with your contractor. The times that we did bring the issue of additional work after the completion date to counsel, they did not raise an objection to adding the work without addressing the contract's completion date, unless that work was necessary for a complete and usable facility, which the establishment of the BOD would serve to address. I believe that technically what you have is an excuse to accept work after the completion date, rather than cause to extend.

Let me ask another way (if it doesn't change your answer, I understand...it didn't change mine). If you can suspend a contract, for an extended period of time, pushing its work many years into the future, how could you have a bona fide need of the original year? If you legitimately don't need the work done (vis a vis, the acceptability of the extended suspension to the Government), does that not otherwise prove that it is not a legitimate need of the original fiscal year? Granted it was a legitimate need at the time that award was made, and contracts are routinely suspended owing to circumstances that arise during execution. It's the length of suspension that seems to alter the legitimacy of the bona fide need of the original fiscal year. And that, given that the bona fide need of the original fiscal year is in question, and that the answer may be that it is not a bona fide need of that year, are you not augmenting the appropriation for the fiscal year during which the work is performed improperly?

I don't see how you can get that from someone asking a question. I don't think anyone comes here to get legal advice, they come here to discuss things. Most of what's posted here is useless, but every so often someone with some knowledge logs in and posts something that we hadn't thought of or has some value. Trust me, we're not documenting our files with the mindless comments that get posted to wifcon.

Do you think this is still a bonda fide need of FY 2008?

Our agency was ordered by our superiors to suspend work on a construction contract awarded in FY 2008 pending a review by departmental officials in DC (work was subsequently suspended). But a decision on continuing the work hasn't been made yet. The agency?s choices seemed to be (1) allowing the suspension to continue on a day-by-day basis, with the contractor waiting to return to the worksite at any moment and continuing to accrue standby costs, or (2) terminating the contract for the Government's convenience and doing another acquisition later if the go-ahead ever did come. But neither option (1) nor (2) seemed to be the best choice given the circumstances. Citing FAR 1.102 discretion, the agency and the contractor agreed by contract modification to put the contract into long-term suspension, or abeyance, for the remainder of 2010, with a projected decision date of January 2011 for resumption of work or termination for convenience. What are the bona fide needs, anti-deficiency, improper augmentation, and competition in contracting concerns?

JLchief55, We just went through a similar scenario. The vendor paid the debt, we awarded the contract and we moved on. Does your vendor not want to pay what they owe or do they dispute that they owe it? The simplest thing for them would be to just pay their debt. Consider circumstances when you make your responsibility determination and consider defenses to a determination that the vendor is not responsible if you go that route.

You need to open a dialog with your customer. Since you're only an employee you probably don't have authority from your company to ask the Government for what you want, and it doesn't sound from your description that the people you work with have the authority to grant it. Ask your boss at your company. If that person is willing to help you, you're on the right track. I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the people you're working with over it. Trying to find something to cram down their throats is going to be the wrong approach.

I'm sorry, nygiants20, but I doubt you're going to find anything that's going to be of much help. I can't think of anything in my experience that would require an agency to grant contractor employees some type of compressed work schedule. Unless your organization can work it out with the client organization, I'm afraid that "just because" is going to be your answer.

Hi mskitty, The situations you describe are fairly common. You'll become more familiar with what tools are available to CO's as you progress through your career. For now, whether you think it's right, wrong or indifferent, you'll need to follow the advice and direction of the CO's you're working with. When you have your own authority you'll be able to make up your own mind about what you think is in the best interests of the Government given all of the circumstances you are dealing with at that moment. Then move on, you have other procurements and other issues to tackle. A good debate is healthy, but don't make it the point of your work. Vern is correct when he says that if there is nothing that prohibits a course of action then you are free to employ it, but it's up to you to decide if what you've come up with is the right thing to do. It won't always be easy, and you'll often find yourself in the situation where there is no right answer. Don't let that intimidate you into not making a decision or being ultra-conservative. Focus on readiness, rather than resistance.

Wow. Another question posted on Wifcon that gets beat around and never answered. What a surprise. To answer your question: Sure it's allowable, but it isn't allocable, so don't pay it.

The problem you run into with long time CO's (and those that wish they were CO's) is that there is a great deal of avoidance of answering questions directly, and an absolute need to be right. CO's that operate in black and white terms are dinosaurs and symptomatic of what's wrong with the profession and the very reason we remain undervalued to the organization's we serve. At some point you have to stop admiring the problem (and stroking your ego) and make a decision. The answers to the original question and to mskitty's question are both yes.

Interns are capable of journeyman 1102 work when they complete their internships.

I had a contract very similar to the one you describe with an ANC. The rules aren't quite the same as for 8(a). ANC's don't graduate like 8(a)'s and there is no time limit on their status. Check out the regulations that allow for contracting to ANC's. They aren't well addressed in FAR.