Jamaal Valentine

Agreed. Coincidently, maintaining a mission (user needs) focus leads to the things many/most contracting officers want: improved relationships, discretion, responsibility, promotions, etc. I want to reread the DPAP or DepSecDef memo that discusses evaluation requirements of contracting officers. I believe it touched on this topic and was established/clarified/reinforced, in part, within the iterations of DoDI 5000.66.

I just finished a four day trip on the historic Rubicon Trail and can't remember why I asked the question, but I believe I presented the question to REA for clarification. I don't recall the discussion being about the Federal Acquisition System, per se. As far as getting users what they need (or want or ask for) and working for them…well, that should go without saying. Nonetheless, even your example presents the potential for competing interests (outcomes) between infantrymen and logisticians; and those are just two of the customers acting on behalf of the American taxpayer.

Sounds similar to '...timeliness of delivery/performance, cost/price', which you said are secondary. Either way, a key question remains: To whom do "outcomes (meeting the customer's mission - on time/on budget/on target) matter more than production metrics." Everyone has a customer including our customers. The balkanization of government increases the number of customers and competing interests. What the mission is depends on who you talk to (The People, Congress, The Principal/Agency, Agent, requiring activity, warfighter/end-user, etc.). I don't think they all have a universal definition for mission or 'outcomes'.

What outcomes? Compliance, timeliness of delivery/performance, cost/price, public policy objectives, etc.? According to who?

Acquisitions including contracting are definitely team sports that operate best with clearly understood roles and healthy relationships/boundaries. While maybe not always acquisition experts, we have a remnant still fighting the good fight and writing about these roles and relationships: Pachter, John S. "The Incredible Shrinking Contracting Officer." Public Contract Law Journal, vol. 39, no. 4, 2010, pp. 705-740. Wynne, Michael W. "Functional Independence of Contracting Officers." Defense AT&L, vol. 34, no. 3, 2005, pp. 96. Robert J Yates III. "The Role of Administrative Contracting Officers." Army Sustainment, vol. 46, no. 5, 2014, pp. 32-35. Palmer, Rodney M. "The Role of Contracting Officer's Representatives." Army Sustainment, vol. 46, no. 5, 2014, pp. 26-31. Miller, Thomas H. "It Takes Two: Working Toward More Effective Program Manager/Contracting Officer Relationships." Contract Management, vol. 54, no. 4, 04, 2014, pp. 14-15. Krieger, John. "Knowing and Loving Your Program Manager: A GUIDE for CONTRACTING OFFICERS." Defense AT&L, November–December 2011, pp. 40–43. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edit: Jamaal: I could not get the last link to work. However. I may have found its companion piece. Knowing and Loving Your KO A Guide for Program Managers

It is unclear to me what you are actually contracting for, but it sounds like advisory and assistance services. Nonetheless, you asked about subscriptions and may find this previous thread illuminating:

They have met the 24 month requirement, right? (e.g., the option was unavailable months 1-23, but could be exercised >24 months) The exact phrasing is important.

Definitely the latter.

I don't think the parties are limited to only changes listed in a changes clause. The standard changes clauses allow the government to order unilateral changes. Why couldn't parties mutually agree to modifications not covered in a changes clause?

I intentionally wrote it as such because the various changes clauses are specific to changes within those clauses (e.g., unilateral change orders). I have since removed 'by written order' because I don't necessarily believe the parties are limited to those types of changes (change orders).

1. The notice period can be changed. (I don't know of an absolute prohibition.) 2. Generally, the parties may at any time, make mutually agreed upon changes within the general scope of a contract anytime before final payment. 3. Generally, a change outside the scope of the contract/competition is a new procurement that the Contracting Officer is not authorized to order. Whether either of these actions 'violate/require an exemption from CICA' requires more information. Remember, an option must have been evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract. (You mentioned renegotiating terms and price redetermination requirements; also, letting a year lapse may prove difficult to justify.) In order to get a more useful response you will need to provide detailed information or revise your question: There are two primary issues and you can probably decide for yourself if you filter your fact scenario through the rules regarding exercising options (exact accord with price and terms); and contract changes (scope determinations, and clauses). Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 41 GC ¶ 308 (“[A]n attempt to exercise an option outside its terms does not constitute a valid exercise of the option.”); Griffin Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 52280 et al., 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,943, at 157,803 (“The Government’s exercise of an option must be unconditional and done in strict accordance with its terms. Any attempt by the Government offeree to alter the conditions of the option will render the exercise of it ineffective.”); Contel Page Servs. Inc., ASBCA No. 32100, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,540, at 98,734 (an option must be unconditionally accepted and any attempt to alter the option terms will render exercise of the option ineffective); Holly Corp., ASBCA No. 24975, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,327, at 81,164 (“the notice by which the power of an option holder is exercised must be unconditional and in exact accord with the terms of the option” (citing Corbin on Contracts § 264 (1963)).

On what grounds or basis do you disagree? What evidence do you have to refute it? What evidence do you have to support an alternate theory or hypothesis? I won't offer an appeal to authority, but senior government contracting leaders seem to believe there is merit to Vern's observation. Heck, the Better Buying Power initiative has a focus area to 'Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce'. Another focus area is improving the 'Tradecraft of Service Acquisition' … at least two of seven focus areas involve something you seemingly disagree about. The rest of the focus areas rely on the professional knowledge and competence of the workforce. What is more important? Many stakeholders highlight the problems associated with the regulatory framework, but even those are secondary or tertiary. For example, good tax attorneys successfully navigate our convoluted tax law because of their knowledge and competence - i.e., professionalism. http://bbp.dau.mil/bbp7focus.html

Any commentary on the $4M limitation at 10 U.S.C. § 2862(a)(2)? I am trying to locate some background information on why it exists and any potential exceptions to it. (Other than the obvious design-bid-build or two-phase design-build) The definition of repair project (10 U.S.C. § 2811(e)) seems to be at the facility level, not necessarily the contract level (value). For example, if you have a contract that repairs several programmed projects that are under $4M each you have not exceeded the limitation. Thoughts? I think FY 2015 NDAA amended the law to add the $4M limitation.

Deleted

Yes, thank you, let's. Some of us newer guys/gals need to learn how to answer questions effectively. We can't expect you and a select few others to teach forever. Again, thank you.