Retreadfed

Remember what the court is ruling on - a contract dispute. In resolving that dispute, the court, of necessity, must examine the terms of the contract. Here, the relevant terms are FAR 52.217-8 and -9. FAR 17.204(e) is not part of the contract. More importantly, that section does not apply to contractors, but only provides guidance to contracting officers. In this regard, note that the time period stated in 52.217-9 only applies to options exercised under that clause. Thus, options exercised under 52.217-8 are not subject to any time period specified in -9. As for your concern about the court's + + reasoning, look at FAR 17.204(a). You get to the "overall duration of the term of the contract" by adding the time limit stated in 52.217-9 + the six month period specified in -8.

Agreed. Moreover, I would not limit this observation to contractors. Many contracting officers don't know what the FAR clauses they put in contracts require them or the contractor to do. Further, they don't know what clauses are to be used in contracts. For example, it is amazing how many times I see FAR 52.215-20 inserted in Section I of contracts.

Have you verified this with the potential prime?

Why would "additional funding" be needed? Taxes should be an element included in your indirect cost rates.

How would this work if employees are subject to the SCA?

Aren't all options contingencies since the government has no obligation to exercise an option?

Why not? What else would you call it?

The responses to this post have tended to focus on source selection criteria primarily past performance. That may be the issue, but have you looked at the description of the work you want done? The problem may not be the source selection criteria, but the way you have identified what you want done. If you are having systemic problems as you described, I would put my money on the description of the services to be provided instead of source selection criteria.

But might be recoverable under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Exempt from what taxes?

This all depends on where the travel will occur. Note that 31.205-46 applies the 3 travel regs on a geographic basis. Thus, even though the contract may have been issued by a DoD activity, that does not mean that all travel is subject to the JTR.

FAR 52.212-4

You need to be more specific as to what the basis for dismissal is. What you consider a minor and non-substantial error, might in fact be a valid basis for dismissal.

The point being, the JTR may not apply at all.

You mean that is what the vendor is telling you. If you do a T4C and issue a final decision determining the amount due, the vendor then has to put up or shut up. Being faced with the possibility of incurring significant litigation costs, he might change his mind. Don't be afraid of threatened litigation. That's part of the game.

Where will the "deployments" be? What do the "CCMD guidelines" say about this?

Is FAR 52.212-4 in the PO?

If FAR 52.216-16 is in the contract, see paragraph (f).

Several years ago, DoD attempted to define commonly used but vague terms. In the draft of the guidance, DoD defined immediately as within the next 180 days. The guidance was never issued.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such prohibition. In my experience, it is not an uncommon practice. I have a memory of one contract where a modification was executed more than a year after the effective date of the mod. If certified cost or pricing data is required of the contractor, a question may arise as to what is the "as of" date for certification. Also, if the cost principles apply to the contract, there can be an issue as to which version of the cost principles apply. For example, concerning the contract mentioned above, there was a significant change in the cost principles between the effective date of the mod and the date the mod was executed.

and if it is government provided contract financing, what kind of financing?

Many people do not have landlines at home. With so many people working from home, landlines are frequently not available.

This may be a symptom of a change in society as a whole. Texting seems to be the preferred method of communication among younger people today.

And the government has a duty to respond to such an inquiry. If there is an ambiguity that is brought to the government's attention and the government does not respond adequately and timely the contractor's reasonable interpretation of the contract will prevail. The fact that the time for asking questions may have passed does not relieve the government of this duty.

Does the RFP say anything about subcontractor travel? Does the RFP indicate that subcontractor travel costs are covered by the place holder amount stated in the RFP? If the RFP does not indicate that subcontractor travel costs are covered by the place holder amount, I think that you do not have to require subs not to include travel in their proposals. Are you showing subcontractor costs in your proposal? If so are they included in CLINs other than the travel CLIN? Travel costs incurred by a sub are a cost of providing whatever you are delivering to the government. If the RFP does not require subcontractor travel costs to be included in the travel CLIN, why not put all subcontractor costs in the FFP CLINs? If you do this, I would try to make the subcontracts FFP.