C Culham

Wait, what you do or want to do may not be indicative of what the surety industry does. Remember the surety industry is always asking you for info like performance status, mods done, etc. It could be that the surety is going to automatically increase the value of the bond when they find out that a modification has been done. Noting this I suggest that you might want to ask the surety or their authorized agent what they are going to do when they find out that a modification has been issued against the contract. You may find out that all your ideas on what to do are for not.

Thank you for posting a very good read.

Thanks Pepe

Pepe - Are you saying not a risk factor at all? Or, greater risk with regard to the others? And, in either case what is your reference? As this is the beginners area it would be beneficial if you could add a little substance (reference).

Is the matter of discussion of "cardinal change" a GAO issue at all? I would suggest that GAO references to same are used as a comparative reference not a doctrine with regard to protests. Pepe has it closer where "scope of competition" is where they go. "Cardinal Change" is a doctrine used by boards and courts with regard to matters in dispute about breach of contract.. From the Contract Attorneys Deskbook of 2014 "Out-of-Scope (“Cardinal”) Change – A contract change that is not within the general scope of the original contract in terms of type and amount of work, period of performance, and manner of performance." Note the "and". No legal expert here but by my read of all kinds of resources a cardinal change is so profound that it is the cause for a contractor to refuse to do the work not a matter of basis for protest. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683966.pdf states this (more GAO pasta to consider) - "To assess whether a contract is so substantially changed by the modification that the original and modified contracts are essentially and materially different, we consider such factors as the extent of any changes in the type of work, performance period, and costs between the modification and the original contract, as well as whether the original solicitation adequately advised offerors of the potential for the change or whether the change was the type that reasonably could have been anticipated, and whether the modification materially changed the field of competition for the requirement."

Hung up on semantics today. The FAR may require should the agency's supplement require. Quick look suggests that some agency supplements require a written SSP in some cases.

I could only dream to be so giant ....thank you

Okay I am going to hand it to you but it is not that hard. http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr053/fr053209/fr053209.pdf I found this in 2 minutes by going to https://www.loc.gov/ , and using the search engine on the site pulled down "periodicals" and then cut an paste your clause number into the search terms and bingo. Now if the above document which you can search just using the clause number does not give you exactly what you want keep using my concepts noted to find what you want. Try it you will like it!

I agree with the yes with some added thoughts. Many agencies on the civilian side of the Federal sector have contract specialists that function as an independent contracting officer. Quick examples are agencies like the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Interestingly these same agencies get involved in efforts close to contingency operations known as incident response (check this out www.nifc.gov) mostly in the wildfire arena but have been involved in hurricane rescue and recovery, shuttle accident assistance and notably 9/11. I mention "contract specialist" first as your post notes only hiring "CO's". Semantics I know but usually an agency hires a contract specialist (GS-1102) and subsequently the 1102 fulfills the requisite FAC-C or DAWIA requirements to achieve certification which in turn provides the opportunity for appointment of the individual as a Contracting Officer. While policy provides that appointment of a CO is not limited to the 1102 series FAC-C certification does require experience akin to the qualification standards of the 1102 series (Ref.https://www.fai.gov/certification/contracting-fac-c#Cert) . So to the semantics, for me it is many contract specialists are in positions where they are appointed to function as an independent CO. In the aforementioned agencies they even have independent CO's in the 1105 series and on occasion the 1101 series.

Just remembered another site, Library of Congress. Go here https://www.loc.gov/ then in search do it as a periodical and then "Defense Acquisition Regulations" and you will get almost all the FR, then look at all the hits you got to see if you find what you are looking for. I suspect you will find the original and then amendments to leading up to 1988.

Not sure how far you are going back but try the Federal Register website for a search, I think you can get back to 1994.

Not spot on but a read of this GAO decision may give you some help on your question as to whether past performance information should only be considered after receipt of proposals... http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/407113.pdf

Not that I disagree with the ideal of a recommendation but I do notice a lack of reference to a "Contracting Officers Representative". I am confused with regard to where a "contract administrator" fits in with regard to authority under the contract. Noting as the ACO/PCO have not seemed to share anything with regard actions regarding the memorandum sent by the contractor. This is not to impugn anyone or anything in this thread but in my experience as a CO with both PCO and ACO responsibilities I had lots of folks second guessing my decisions that were not in the official, and actual authority, responsibility loop. Therefore I am not ready to agree that the OP is in the responsible organizational line to make the recommendation with out first seeing the actual authority assigned to the OP and even the actual memorandum by the contractor before I draw a conclusion.

I am going to guess that you are already doing this but seeking legal advice from an individual versed in USPS contracting is probably your best approach to your question. Here are some general thoughts..... The wording by the USPS attempts, in my view, to provide a very broad scope so as to allow any change to be considered "within the scope". However one would think that there is a limit to how extensive (profound) a change is that it changes the very nature of the work. Its seems the USPS is saying the sky is the limit right now. Your thought on difference between metro versus very rural could be in part headed in the right direction with regard to the cardinal change doctrine as it heads down the nature of the work - fairly and reasonably contemplated at contract award - route. It might even fall within performance of work where what is required in a metro area is more and different than that of a rural area. By your comments I have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that beyond the specific statement the solicitation the USPS is offering what the possibilities might be but does not help with a "line in the sand" as to possible scope. In my view this brings up the matter of what is so extensive that it is out of scope. You may want to get the USPS to commit formally what the extent of the possible added work is. Won't do you much good if they say well 24,750 more locations but it might if they say something different than the total of 25,000. I offer my thoughts noting that it appears that the USPS Board of Contract Appeals and the Court of Federal Claims has applied the cardinal change doctrine to USPS contracts.

No argument with regard to the additional advice but I am curious what process has been done in the past? If your proposed way is a departure from what has been routinely done and it has be done a lot then you may want to give a little more weight to Joel's thoughts. If this is the say one of the first TO needs out of the barrel then keep in mind the ideals of minimal and streamlined.

I have not stated that tradeoffs are not allowed. What I have stated is that the fair opportunity process defined in the contract must provide that trade-offs are at most stated as allowable or at the least implied that they are. FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv)(C) does not mean anything other what it tells the agency what the contract must state. What happens if the contract does not disclose the factors/subfactors that the agency expects to use, can you then invent them per task order? I think not! To add FAR 16.505(b)(7) only comes into play if in fact the trade-offs as allowed by the contract were used. Its a discussion of debriefing not a discussion that says "All IDIQ multiple award contracts allow trade-offs". Again let me emphasize you are drawing conclusions, even general ones, from the FAR and not from what the contract states. Providing advice as how to proceed under a contract without referring to the contracts language is a very slippery slope.

I am very concerned with the responses given in this thread. Let me explain. First and foremost the FAR references are not important to this issue. The exact wording of the fair opportunity process defined in the contract is what counts. All responses have assumed what the fair opportunity contract language is and doing so is a pitfall. To give the most appropriate response nkd9 should provide the exact language rather than paraphrasing. By example nkd9 has stated that technical capability/past experience will used for the specific task order but also states that the fair opportunity language and award will be based on best value. To these points the specific question is this - Are any of us sure that the fair opportunity allows for trade-offs as I am reminded that best value can be achieved otherwise. I want to suggest the nkd9 provide the exact language of the IDIQ with regard to fair opportunity before he/she departs on a path that might or might not be consistent with the specific contract.

Going back and re-reading this thread the issue is the government has stated a position and Sprice is looking for ways to defend his/her entities position specifically with regard to obtaining the agency's price negotiation memorandum. The answer seems, and I agree, that it depends on the who, when, etc. of whether the agency will, or has to provide the memorandum. Beyond this need it would seem there is a process that both the agency and Sprice needs to follow with regard to a direct cost being questioned, negotiated and possibly and ultimately disallowed by the agency. Noting this I uncovered this memorandum that may be helpful to Sprice...... https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/Policy/DCMA-INST-128.pdf

Thanks ji for supporting a reference I previously provided!!!!!!

With regard to h2h's ideas maybe this too....noting the imperative "shall". 42.301 -- General. When a contract is assigned for administration under Subpart 42.2, the contract administration office (CAO) shall perform contract administration functions in accordance with 48 CFR Chapter I, the contract terms, and, unless otherwise agreed to in an interagency agreement (see 42.002), the applicable regulations of the servicing agency. FAR 42.3 might hold some other gems too!

Brought to light in another on line discussion forum....see top of page 4 of the attachment to the memo. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/m-18-05-Final.pdf

No cost contract expert. Likewise I have been challenged before that my references that I provide are not spot on. But, I do look at posts and explore issues raised just for my own inquisitive mind. In this case as I was doing some reading I ran across this document (I acknowledge that it is dated) that may have some ideals that would be helpful in your discussion with PCO/ACO/DCAA.... https://www.dcaa.mil/content/Documents/mmr/m04ppd023.pdf

From a different view than FAR part 31 you may want to consider FAR subpart 4.7 and FAR clause 52.215-2 if included in the prime and hopefully subcontracts below the prime level.

Consideration of the fact that this is a beginners forum let me attempt to offer the practicality along with references. Exercise of an option requires specific determinations to be made - FAR 17.207. GAO case law on this is fairly clear and can be found here http://www.wifcon.com/pd17_207.htm Continuing a contract absent the timely exercise of an option brings up questions with regard to CICA, as well as the same considerations that are to be made when the option is exercised, and can be appropriately addressed through single source or sole source processes, especially in such unique circumstances as a longer than ever lapse of budget situation. This in my view relates to ji's previous post with regard a bi-lateral agreement to continue the contract as if the option was exercised unilaterally. I echo that as suggested by leo to contact a CO prior to any action you might take. While dealing with the unusual situations created by budget lapse contractors determine how to best address the risks they are faced with regarding continued contract performance just as the "someones" in government are in handling the same matters but realize the matter of unauthorized commitments is a standard that does not go away. So work with the tools that are at your disposal and work through the situation as in the end there are fixes that will work that are not only are practicable but follow the guiding principles of the FAR. And a little of both as ingredients to your fix will either narrow or completely eliminate the risk of others questioning your approach to the fix.

Quick response and did not check out this reference myself but take a look at 13 CFR 125.6 and see if answers your question.