illzoni

The FARSite seems to be down, or restricted, again.

Anyone know the deal?

IT'S BACK!!!

I believe the intent of the quoted passage is to promote/allow competition among the IDIQ holders.  As your proposed scenario doesn't allow for competition, and at best allows for rotating sources (assuming needs vary among the CLINs), it doesn't meet that measure.

While your proposed action may meet the written rule, it doesn't meet the intent and that's why Jamaal's correct in assuming most offices wouldn't allow it.

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

illzoni - Might be a rule of three when it comes FSS....read on....and suspect this webpage might of also helped buddyandme.

 

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113371

Thanks for the link.

Some of the rationale employed there is......interesting.

As the OP's question seems resolved, may I take a tangent.....?

Does "rule of two" apply to FSS SB Set-Asides?
Part 8 parrots several passages from 19, but skips this one.  Does it apply?

26 minutes ago, Desparado said:

This appears to be the type of question that will cause Vern to absolutely go off, appropriately so. No disrespect intended, but I've read many of Vern's comments in the past related to this question and I know he has strong feelings about it.

I believe that new contract specialists/officers want the answers handed to them and experienced ones think they know the answers already. I don't know of too many contracting people that stay up on the FAR as much as we should.  Sadly, I have to put myself in that category as well. With workloads being what they are, very few have the time to dedicate to keeping up with the various changes. I try, but I know that I fall short...  

One reasonable compromise is willingness to reread when others cast any doubt on a topic.  Too many of those thinking they already have the answers aren't willing to re-assess.

Not enough.

I've had colleagues, supervisors, and upper leadership befuddled when I've pointed out wording in the FAR to support my positions.  They get so wrapped up in established procedures they forget what the rules actually are.

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 5:14 PM, ji20874 said:

I have no opposition to improvements in the FAR system.  But I don't to pretend like those improvements are going to solve anything.  

We have entirely too many 1102s who act like clerks, not professionals -- too many who want to follow procedures instead of produce results -- too many who won't read the current FAR and won't read an improved FAR.  And we have a bureaucratic culture that reinforces all of the above and suffocates innovation, reasonable risk-taking, and the exercise of discretion.  We promote people to high grades who are not consummate contracting professionals.  I paint with a broad brush, of course, but this is our real problem in my opinion.

Some agencies (well, at least one) seem like that's their plan--train clerks rather than KOs.  Don't let them think, but instead follow endless checklists and use mandatory templates.  For a KO with a previous, comfortable level of autonomy, it's torture.

It could be worse than DoD.  When in the ANG, I knew it was FAR, DFARS, AFARS, NGFARS.

VA basically ignores the VAAR.  Everything is a policy memo, oftentimes so outdated as to be indecipherable.  The VA2268 (like the DD2579) doesn't even have a prescribing directive.

In some agencies, the quest to create metrics is strong and they've used the purchase request (PR) as a government estimate so they can calculate savings between the estimated price and contracted price.  The number is garbage, but they don't care.

Lionel has probably proffered the best answer regarding the recent type of contract discussion, IMO.

The government requires 2080 hours of physician coverage.  It is clearly not a level of effort contract, as there are no fixed tasks to be completed and measured.  It's also not a labor hours contract, as government personnel determine the number of hours needed.  The fact that the number of hours is an estimate could probably be handled better.

Vern's answer on 6/8/2015 answered the OP's question just fine, and ji20874 provided another good answer when the thread was resurrected.

PS - VA1102, you're welcome to reach out to me directly (is there an IM function here?) and we can talk more about VA-specific stuff. 

Vern,

You're pushing your line of reasoning to the extreme with the effect of making a disingenuous argument.

Don maintains a clause is a clause no matter its location in the document.  Your counter is that he's asserting all text in the contract is a clause.

But your suggestion that sent us down this rabbit hole was to put the text that would otherwise be considered a clause somewhere else in the document.  You suggested moving a clause so it wouldn't be considered a clause.  Don stated it would still be a clause, regardless of relocation.

Software is covered by copyright and can be thought of as text, as that is what it is.  The fact that information can be input and different information is output doesn't make it any more a service than a calculator (which will output information after you input).

Software is a product just like a manufactured supply.  Contractor personnel labor to produce the end product.

Software leases grant use of the product for a period of time just as if we're buying the use of other supply products for a period of time (e.g. cars, equipment, hotel rooms).

Software and software leases are supplies.

I'm particularly interested in how this would affect agencies outside DoD.

Wasn't aware.  Am now.  Will check it out from time to time.

Thanks.

My personal experience with the military and government in general is that brainstorming is rarely used effectively.  The part of brainstorming that works best is the process of letting all parties express ideas without judgment.  Too often, judgment is applied too early and creative thought is thwarted.  This "call" would be an attempt to identify those who would be willing to challenge the status quo with creative ideas.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

We don't want to confuse the issue.  An option exercise is not a change order.

Sure.

Neither is a commercial contract modification citing 52.212-4.

But I suspect we don't have the full picture if we read the OP literally.  He says he's processing a modification to "extend the Period of Performance only."  However, I'm betting the quantity is also increasing, otherwise it would be the contractor asking for an extension to complete the given task.  OTOH, it could just be a PO for a fixed task that took longer than agreed and they're trying to clean up the contract file with a mod to match the POP to the actual completion date.

Lacking another clause that would give the government the unilateral right to exercise an option (52.217-8 or -9), 52.212-4(c )'s requirement that all changes be bilateral should prevail.

2 hours ago, ji20874 said:

If you need six more months of service, and the FAR 52.217-8 clause is not in the contract/order, don't do a J&A and bilaterally incorporate the -8 clause into the contract/order, and then unilaterally exercise the option -- rather, just do a J&A and negotiate the new work into the contract/order, either as a modification to an existing CLIN(s) or by adding a new CLIN(s).

Either way, you need a J&A.

Here, J&A can also mean LSJ or JEFO or SSJ, depending on the circumstances.

word

My take on why -8 can't/shouldn't be added is that it constitutes an out-of-scope modification, assuming several services. By adding -8, you're essentially increasing the quantity. So, let's think of it as nothing more than a mod to increase the quantity....What rules apply?

Was the proposal accepted by the government to become the contract?
Did the CO sign the proposal, which acknowledge the RFP amendment(s), to form the contract?

If so, the terms should be incorporated into the contract.

How many protests have Mr. Marshall and Aldevra filed?

I'd hate to be paying Aldevra's legal fees.

Let me make sure I understand the scenario:

A&E contract;

Government delay;

Time extension (TE) needed.

52.243-1 - The only reason I can think of that this wouldn't be appropriate simply for a TE would be the argument that a better clause IAW 11.503 should be used (52.211-13).