CO1559

1. Yes, changing the order of tasks, and moving in and out of PMB. 2. The PMB is EVMS. 3. The direction goes through me. Thanks. I'm on the road this weekend and the coming week, hence delayed response.

The directed scope definitely appear as tasks which are related to specific work breakdown structure (WBS) elements within the PMB.

I am a CO managing a large dollar Contract (CPAF, term level of effort, services). Is it proper to direct the contractor to move scope back and forth, or in and out of the Contract’s underlying performance measurement baseline, on the basis of Federal program manager priorities associated with the ever changing budget? Usually this practice will result in some changed work for which I issue change orders. Second question, given the above culture of Federal managers moving scope around, if the contractor agrees to no change in cost or fee for the changed work portion, is it allowable to not go through the change order administration process of certified cost proposal, review, definitization? I am new to award fee contracting, but previously managed a CPIF completion contract, and there was no “scope swapping” activity, but there were plenty of directed change orders to administer. Thanks

Your advice has been a great help to me, thank you! I'll next be researching cardinal changes, because there may be a desire to change the type of contract going forward. For example, from a CPAF to a CPFF, etc. In other words, the contract will still be cost type, but certain parties want the fee determinatin scheme to change. The current idea includes making a final determination for fee earned up to the end of the current performance period, and then the modified fee determination scheme would kick in for the extension. Except for periodic change orders that may occur during the extension, all work going into the extension was included in the original solicitation.

Vern: Wow! When I looked at your post earlier, it didn't show all of these citations! This is great. Thanks

Thank you for the help. I feel much better about requesting approval for the contract extension.

Thank you for the analysis. The Government has issued numerous change orders that have extended the time needed to complete the project, and several differing site conditions have also extended the schedule. However, we have dealt with these changes without impacting the contract end date. Recently the Government made a decision to reduce promised funding for the fiscal year, and this funding reduction is the driver to the schedule slipping beyond the current contract performance period. That appears to be an excusable delay under 52.249-14.a.2. The contractor is performing well. I’m not sure if the services are severable. I found a definition of severable on a dau website that quotes the Red Book (Vol 1, chapter 5), and also offers that “a service is non-severable if the service produces a single or unified outcome, product, or report that cannot be subdivided for separate performance in different fiscal years.” (https://dap.dau.mil/...estionID=106277) My agency treats this as a project with a defined completion in terms of scope, i.e. “a single or unified outcome.” However, under the definition above, the services appear severable because the project is made up of numerous completion goals that lead up to a final completion outcome, but that could be subdivided. For example, some of our changes have removed significant pieces of scope.

My organization intends to extend the period of performance of a cost type completion contract beyond the original awarded performance period in order to allow more time to complete the contract scope. The contract is for completion of a project. The contract has no option periods and the period of performance exceeds five years. I am preparing an extension request for senior level review and am struggling to locate regulatory or statutory authority to support extending my completion contract beyond the stated term. Comparing FAR 16.306(d)(1) and (2), it is implied that I can extend the completion contract without it being a new acquisition. I researched WIFCON and found a post which started on April 1, 2003 titled “Changing Period of Performance after Award.” In that post, Vern Edwards stated the following to “CO4AF”: “… This (restructuring a period of performance beyond the scope of existing contract) must be distinguished from a situation in which the period of performance is extended to give the contractor more time to complete a project, which is not a new procurement and does not change the scope of the contract.” Can someone point me towards authority to support extending this contract without competition or a Part 6 justification?