goergens

Right - they only got 12 months of service but the contract period lasted longer than 12 months. I have looked all over GAO decisions and the Red Book for an answer on whether the "as long as the contract doesn't exceed one year" means one calendar year max, or one year of service (which was the bona fide need). Thanks for your help anyway.

Yes, they did, and it ended just shy of the 90 day mark.

The delay was due to the government waiting for replacement/new equipment to be delivered from another organization within the government. The contractor could not proceed with work until that equipment was delivered.

I am currently doing work with a federal agency client and a question has arisen as to whether or not an annual appropriation remains available in terms of time under a specific scenario. A firm-fixed-price contract was awarded for severable services for a period of one year and fully funded at time of award. During that time, there was a government-caused delay that required the performance to extend beyond the 12 months originally determined to be the PoP. As such, when work resumed, the total period of performance funded by the obligated appropriation was now 15 months for this severable service, which exceeds the 12 month limit imposed by 41 U.S.C. sect. 253l. Although the total amount of services rendered and charged to the government did not exceed 12 months - i.e., they still got 12 months of service at the FFP per month - the performance of said services lasted 15 months. Obviously the intent of the agency at award was to comply with the limits of 41 U.S.C. sect. 253l, but circumstances played out differently. Which is the appropriate course of action in terms of time availability given the cause of the extension: modify the contract to extend the PoP at no increase in price and use the original funding/appropriation, or modify the contract to extend the PoP and fund the remaining three months with current year money?