Sunstrider

1) See attached. All other regulations and agency supplements are silent on the matter. 2) $1 minimum. 3) No matter what, the Government is obligated to award the minimum of $1. Additionally, the Contractor is not obligated to perform over the contract ceiling amount ($100 million). SF 1402.pdf

I've posed this question to several folks and heard several different answers, all with strong reactions. To clarify, this question is respect to the basic IDIQ vehicle itself, and has nothing to do with any order(s). Can they award? Why or why not?

Thank you.

So, let's say that for a service contract, an option is exercised "late" during the option's own period of performance. For instance, Option II from 15 Oct 2018 to 14 Oct 2019 is exercised on 29 Oct 2018. Would one set retroactively set the effective date to 15 Oct, or set effective date to 29 Oct?

This seems more a result of poor communication skills than anything else. If I am generating a solicitation for you (prospective contractor), it is in my best interest to ensure it's organized in a way that is conducive for you to understand and to generate responsive proposals on your end. Poor articulation/presentation of requirements is just asking for confusion, regardless of whichever FAR sections are utilized.

It seems as if contracting offices seldom have strong top cover. Oftentimes, when the preaward process becomes mired in conflict or when contractor performance goes sour because the program office has neglected to conduct its own due diligence, contracting personnel are automatically expected to resolve/manage the fallout. I haven't personally seen contracting functional leaders hold their counterparts accountable in these instances, so I'm curious as to others experiences. Does contracting tend to suffer from poor leadership? Does the nature of the contracting role itself predispose its personnel to such circumstances? On the flip side, for those who benefit from strong contracting leadership, what are some actions yours leaders take in order to preclude/resolve irresponsible/lackadaisical behaviors of counterparts?

By not exercising the last option in a timely manner, the Government lost its unilateral right to extend the contract PoP at the prenegotiated price. This is the one undeniable consequence of what was administrative negligence. Since the contractor has tentatively committed to its original price for the option, you may issue a bilateral modification to exercise the option. A new contract is not required simply because the Government relinquished unilateral rights to the option.

I have a few questions regarding the contract closeout process, especially with regards to common practices I see. 1) Why releases of claims included in modifications to deobligate excess funds? I am not finding a basis for this practice in regulation, and, IMO, it's far easier to just let the contractor submit a claim, should they deem such action necessary. 2) Would you consider a unilateral modification in order to remove all excess funds for contract closeout? If so, what authority would you cite on the SF 30? 3) I cannot locate guidance for how to properly use Block 5 on the DD 1594 - Contract Completion Statement. Under what circumstance will it be authorized to close a contract out with excess funds remaining? What about the checkbox "In Process"?