Laura4p0

Hi Vern, I know it's been three years since this topic was discussed, but recently the question has popped up again concerning whether or not the -8 clause could be bilaterally incorporated after award given it had not been included either in the solicitation at award. What has always perplexed me is the justification that by not including the -8 clause in the initial award, the losing Offerors were not given the opportunity to propose pricing for those six months, and subsequently the -8 pricing for all the bidders was not considered nor evaluated. What prevents me from totally embracing the opinion that a Contracting Officer can not bilaterally incorporate the -8 clause after award, and opinion the -8 option can not be exercised even if it was included, but not considered or evaluated, is the language in the first two sentences of the clause: "The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor. " The language in the -8 clause prohibits the Offerors from deviating from the pricing already included in their proposal, for those additional six months. Even if they are given an opportunity to propose pricing for those six months, they can only duplicate the rates already in the contract. So even if I forget to include the -8 extension in the solicitation and required the Offerors to propose pricing, I still would know how much it would cost the Government, for each and every Offeror, to extend the contract for up to six months. I would know, because I already have the pricing from which the extension pricing would be duplicated from, i.e. the pricing proposed in the last period of performance. This holds true whether we invoke -8 after the base period or the final period of performance. After all, could I not exercise the -8 option, let's say, at the end of Option 2 of a contract awarded with a one-year base and 4, one-year options? Of course in doing so, the contract would die at the end of the six month -8 extension (providing they extended for the maximum time allowed), and of course after that, the contract dies and option periods 3 and 4 are un-exercisable. Following the premise that if we did not require Offerors to propose pricing for an -8 extension period, and subsequently we could not have evaluated or considered the pricing, we can neither exercise the -8 Option or incorporate if after the fact, wouldn't you in theory need to require Offerors to propose pricing for an additional six months after each and every period in the contract? Taking into consideration the 5 year contract example above, Offerors would be required to propose pricing for a total of 5, six month periods; one for the base year, and one for each of the 4 option years. And it's at this premise I get hung up. The logic doesn't make sense to me, because we know what the pricing is going to be for all of those six month periods, and we actually have already evaluated that missing pricing prior to award, because the extension pricing is exactly the same as the period the extension is piggy backing on. Without the Offerors ever proposing pricing for any -8 six month extension, whether it be the base period or the last option period, we've already evaluated the pricing and determined the award winner is the best value to the Government. Again, taking the example above, would you ever envision a scenario where a company could be awarded a contract after the CO has evaluated Offers that did not include the -8 option nor asked to provide any pricing, but if all the Offerors had included the six month extension pricing (which really just makes the 4th, one year option period, turn into a 18th option period at a continuation of the existing pricing), the outcome might turn out different? The pricing the Offerors propose for those six months can be neither reduced or increased. Is it then impossible for a losing Offeror, if given a new opportunity to bid on the -8 extension, which he previously was denied, offer the Government a 20% decrease in pricing and possibly tipped the scales in their favor making them the new overall lowest price Offeror? The bottom line is then, what we are trying to avoid denying us the ability to extend a contract using -8 if the extension pricing had been proposed but not evaluated/considered, nor allowing us to add -8 after award, is it not? However, let's say three Offerors all bid 1 million dollars for the fourth option period. We know, whether we get pricing or not for the -8 extension period, each offer would cost the Government an additional 500k to extend the contract for six months. There is no uncertainty we may get a discount in those six months, or even an increase for that matter. And if you think about it, we actually have already evaluated and considered the pricing for those six months, even if the we didn't ask for them, because we've already evaluated the last option period where the pricing comes from. Expanding on that, we've really already evaluated and considered pricing for any extension, on any performance period we are allowed to exercise the -8 option clause. So, I'd really like to know how someone explains, that after omitting the requirement to propose -8 extension pricing prior to award, and we later get to the end of the period of performance and discover we need to extend the contract six months and incorporate the clause bilaterally, we somehow have denied the losing Offerors an opportunity to have their -8 extension pricing considered when choosing the winner? We did and do know what pricing they would have proposed, and I can't see how adding it to the overall proposed amount would have changed the outcome of the award decision. I've gone round and round attempting to reconcile this in my brain, so any light on the subject would be most helpful. thanks, Laura