ji20874

A simplified acquisitions BPA under FAR Part 13? There is no requirement to have a ceiling on such a BPA. A BPA against schedule contracts under FAR Subpart 8.4? There is no requirement to have a ceiling for such a BPA, but only an estimate, and YES, orders may exceed the estimate. Practitioners who do not understand correct principles will often impose a ceiling on BPAs they establish, but hopefully they will learn correct principles one day and stop imposing ceilings.

When you say "contractor," do you mean (1) a business concern who has a contract, or (2) an employee of such a concern?

To whom did you make your suggestion? How did he or she respond? Is there possibly confusion between a multi-year and multiple-year contract?

There is no requirement for a phase one evaluation to use only GO/NO-GO factors, meaning that the agency would eliminate only technically unacceptable proposals in that phase. Rather, the phase one evaluation may be selective and subjective. For example, if an agency wants to do oral presentations or needs to do technical testing, but only has capacity or appetite for such in-depth evaluations with a small number of offerors, a phase one may be used to narrow the field to the prospective offerors who are most likely to be successful. Of course, the solicitation needs to be written appropriately. govt2310, do you disagree with the finding in the case you cited?

It depends. A few possibilities... Do you want to extend the period of performance to allow the contractor to overcome its failure to perform timely, as an alternative to termination for default or cause? Yes, you may do this as matter of professional discretion, and hopefully with some exchange of consideration. Do you want to extend the period of performance as part of an equitable adjustment under the Changes clause, Government Property clause, or a similar clause? Yes, you may do this as a matter of contract administration and fairness. Do you want to extend the period of performance because the contractor has completed the work but there are unspent funds, and you want to allow the contractor to collect those funds by doing more work? Well, this one is harder to justify. It depends.

Why not exercise the option, and then do a termination for convenience at the appropriate time?

What many people call fixed-unit-price contracts are often actually firm-fixed-price contracts -- that is, the amount the government pays for an item (the unit price) "is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the contract." Isn't that the definition of FFP? Thus, generally speaking, FUP = FFP.

Contract file closeout under FAR 4.804 is an administrative procedure for a government contracting office -- the office's closeout has zero effect on the rights and obligations of either of the parties to the contract. All rights and obligations that existed before closeout still exist after closeout. That is not what closeout in FAR 4.804 means. Would it work better to say closeout in FAR 4.804 means completion of administrative actions to make sure the contract file is ready to move from active management to retirement?

I still say painting a vessel's bottom is not a "system" procurement in any sense of the word, and I have to believe that no instance of the word "system" in the FAR, any other procurement regulation, or any procurement court or board decision applies to a contract for painting a vessel's bottom. A vessel's hull and the paint applied to it simply is not a "system." So, my advice is to forget any regulation or decision involving a system procurement -- yes, certainly, you can contract for spot painting of a vessel's hull -- and yes, certainly, you can try to draft a homemade warranty clause if the standard FAR clauses don't fit, but I don't know how practical that will be (in other words, I don't know if prospective bidders will opt out of the procurement or raise their prices to exorbitant levels, and I don't know how you will enforce the warranty -- you will want to do some market research to answer these questions to your satisfaction). Best wishes.

A contract to paint a vessel's bottom doesn't sound to me like a system procurement or an equipment procurement. Any FAR text (including warranty clauses) for systems and equipment procurements seems inappropriate, and should not drive your actions or decisions.

FAR 4.804 closeout is wholly irrelevant to your situation. Contract closeout under FAR 4.804 is an administrative procedure for a government contracting office -- the office's closeout has zero effect on the rights and obligations of either of the parties to the contract. If you want to modify the contract to correct an error, talk to the contractor and do it. If you want to modify the contract to buy a battery, talk to the contractor and do it. But FAR 4.804 closeout is wholly irrelevant to your situation.

That’s good.

Ah but nothing in FAR 17.207 requires option exercises in sequential order, with time gaps in between each one. Any or all of those requirements could be done at one time for all the options the OP wanted to simultaneously exercise.

Yes, generally, unless some other constraint presents itself. Such constraints might include the text of the contract itself, availability of funds, and so forth. Several posters here are imagining constraints and are answering No -- it seems they might be answering with No based on facts that are not in evidence. But the OP has not identified any constraints that might lead a reasonable person to a No answer, so I am comfortable with Yes as a general answer. There simply is no FAR-level requirement about exercising options in sequential order, with time spaces in between each option exercise.

Yes, generally, unless some other constraint presents itself. Such constraints might include the text of the contract itself, availability of funds, and so forth. But assuming no such constraints exist, if the contract calls for a dozen widgets to be delivered on the first day of the following month, with six options each for a dozen widgets to be delivered on the first day of each of the following six months, Yes, a contracting officer could exercise all six options at the same time in the same contract modification (rather than six separate contract modifications spaced a month apart).

Was the solicitation for an open market procurement, or was it an RFQ for a schedule purchase?

Beersheba, Your thought was imprecise. See FAR 22.1003-1 through -7 for an understanding of which contracts are subject to Service Contract Labor Standards (note that the FAR uses SCLS instead of SCA in many instances). Here is a way to think about it -- it isn't a perfect analogy, but maybe it will be helpful -- if you want a hamburger for lunch, will you contract for a hamburger as (1) a supply contract, where the contractor will deliver a hamburger to the designated place at the designated time; or (2) a service contract, where the contractor will hire workers to produce a hamburger for you? The first contract might not be subject to SCLS, but the second one might be.

Always? No. Sometimes? Okay.

GABE, Please read this thread, FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iii), and FAR 12.602(a) and tell us the answer you have discerned for your question -- I hope you feel confident enough to take a position. Others posters here may then respond to either sustain or challenge your position, and your learning will be maximized.

Have you read FAR 13.106-1(a)(2)(iii)? That is where you will find your answer.

It is impossible to use FAR part 12 alone. See FAR 12.102(b). Please don't take my word for it -- please, go and read FAR 12.102(b). FAR part 12 is NEVER used in conjunction with subpart 8.4 or 16.5 -- those are self-contained. If the parent schedule contract or indefinite delivery contract was for commercial items, FAR part 12 may have been appropriately used for the parent instrument procurement -- but the delivery or task order procurement is self-contained within subpart 8.4 or 16.5 and whatever ordering instructions are in the parent instrument. Please read FAR 12.102(b).

Sure! But that courtesy debriefing, however it is styled, and even if styled as a debriefing, does not constitute a required debriefing.

For the benefit of readers, NICRA - NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATE AGREEMENT.

Jamaal, Too often, someone whose practice differs from another will say the other is incorrect -- certainly, it is very easy to do so. This happens within our procurement communities and even in these pages at WIFCON. When an entire organization, with all of their executives and admirals and lawyers and so forth, has decided to adopt a certain practice to deal with their realities, I think it is professionally appropriate to caution someone who self-describes as being "fairly new" but disagrees with the practice to consider and possibly improve the workability of the practice rather than labeling it as correct or incorrect. I wouldn't want the OP, having made inquiry at WIFCON, to go back and assert the incorrectness of his organization's practice to his organization's executives, admirals, and lawyers -- what good would come from that? I think I gave good advice to the OP, and I disagree that a reasonable person would characterize my comment as indicative of an uncritical, anything-goes approach. That said, I do apologize if you or others came to that conclusion -- that was not my intention.

Voyager, Is anyone in this thread supporting "[a]n uncritical, anything-goes approach"?