Constricting Officer

I agree with all information/sources provided thus far. Wanted to add another resource that I found helpful early in my career. Management Concepts published a book called "How to Write a Statement of Work." The author is Peter S. Cole. It provides a macro view (not agency/industry specific) for the elements of a PWS, SOW, SOO, and many other things. There are several editions out there (I think the 6th was the last one). I have the 5th edition and originally picked a used version for like $40. Great resource for me.

It depends on the situation. . . The contractor has no right to refuse the government to perform under the option (if everything was done correctly as identified in 52.217-9). They agreed to at the time of contract award. That being said, if they are coming to you and asking to be let out of it for business reasons, they are not going to be able to perform anyway if they are being truthful. 1. The easiest thing to do is not exercise the option. That decision is the unilateral right of the government. Less paperwork and just re-compete the requirement. 2. You can exercise the option and then terminate for cause (commercial)/default (non-commercial)/convenience. 2.1 - Why terminate for convenience when you can just not exercise the option. Makes no since if you are just going to let them out anyway. 2.2 - Cause/Default would be used to make sure they get de-barred, make sure it is reported for future evaluators or go after then for damages of some kind (cost of the re-compete/disruption of services/etc.). 3. You can require them to perform.

Contracts hit their ceilings/estimated cost all of the time. They are either determined to be complete and closed or modified and continues (moon rover). The FAR doesn't address those situations very well, but there is a lot of things that it does not. I personally don't think that "closing those CLINS" is the correct way to word it. If it is a fiscal law issue, those CLINS could be terminated and legally shouldn't have been awarded in the first place for a period extending past the appropriations availability. Hopefully I am in the right ballpark now.

CR/T&M - estimated funds reached/government decides not to add funds makes the contract physically complete and it can be closed. SS CLINS on a contract that no appropriation available for ordering does not make it complete. If no appropriation is available then it is illegal to order against those CLINS and them being there is not the issue. To remove those CLINS would require a termination, not a close out.

A contract has to be physically complete before it is closed out (FAR 4.804 - (1) & (2)). FAR 4.804-4: "Physically completed contracts. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a contract is considered to be physically completed when- (1) (i) The contractor has completed the required deliveries and the Government has inspected and accepted the supplies; (ii) The contractor has performed all services and the Government has accepted these services; and (iii) All option provisions, if any, have expired; or (2) The Government has given the contractor a notice of complete contract termination. (b) Rental, use, and storage agreements are considered to be physically completed when- (1) The Government has given the contractor a notice of complete contract termination; or (2) The contract period has expired." Short answer - No.

HA! Reality!

Found it: https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/xTech-COVID-19-ventilator-challenge/

That is pretty slick. Guessing the $10K is a Grant and the $1 M would be a contract. Did they release a solicitation or? Amazing the things we can do if people would just look at problems as puzzles and come up with new ways to solve them.

Yes. Why not? Think about it this way. You order your box of pop tarts. Should be safely packaged (bubble wrap) and arrive within 20 business days. You receive your box of pop tarts. It is packaged in bubble wrap with packing peanuts surrounding the bubble wrap, with the box taped together with expensive riggers tape. Oh yea, you placed your order only 36 hours ago. The end item is the most important factor, but customer service, discount terms, speed of delivery and other factors can lead to higher or lower ratings. Companies make reputations on stuff like this (AMAZON).

Agree 100% and will add that almost every hoop we are required to jump through makes just about as much since. Guess that's why we get paid the (GOVERMENT) big bucks . . . We could add and remove many parts of this job in that statement all day, but I digress. Below is a link to a GAO report in 2016 about the amount of orders placed with and without asking for the required discount. About 35.5% did not. https://www.gao.gov/modules/ereport/handler.php?1=1&path=/ereport/GAO-16-375SP/data_center_savings/General_government/19._Federal_Supply_Schedules

If going against the below and using poor judgement on the use of "F&R" v. "Best Value," you have apologies: FAR 8.404 (d) - " . . . GSA has already determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, under schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable. . . " That being said, most COs are of the impression if pricing is tied to a GSA schedule contract it is in the best interest (and therefore the Best Value) of the taxpayer, the customer (VA) and the consumer (veteran). This is not the case all the time and I think we all agree on that. As far as the GSA CO's F&R determination, I do believe they are making the correct determination at the time of award. If I take that determination at face value 3.5 years later it's possible isn't valid. If I was buying fuel from a contract that was awarded in DEC - 2019, that F&R is no longer any valid today. Stepping away from FAR, one definition of a FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE is "The price fair to both parties with all things considered." (https://thelawdictionary.org/fair-and-reasonable-price/). What one CO determines as F&R others will not. Technically you'll are right that FAR/GSA Policy says it. Doesn't make it logical. That's why the DOD and several other agencies (including mine) has a policy in place that requires COs to determine GSA FSS pricing to be F&R prior to issuing orders.

Work is within scope; funds are available and is a “Bona Fide Need.” Do the MOD.

C Culham, are you saying that my error is confusing F&R with Best Value? Example: Three schedule holders (SH) provide janitorial services. These services are provided at the price/per hour as follows: - SH # 1 - $20 HR - SH # 2 - $25 HR - SH # 3 - $30 HR I, as the ordering activity, need 10 HRS of janitorial services and received the quotes below with no additional discount offered: - SH # 1 Quote - $200 - SH # 2 Quote - $250 - SH # 3 Quote - $300 Even though all three quotes are considered F&R, I choose # 1, as it represent the best value to the government. Please advise if I missed your point. Always learning.

No. A Limited Source J&A (FAR 8), Single-Source J&A (FAR 13) and Sole-Source J&A (All others) are part of Acquisition Planning (AP) and are created/approved in support of your Market Research (MR) and acquisition strategy. Let me ask you, if you planned for only one responsible vendor (any of the three J&As listed above), would you be required to go back and change everything in your AP? MR has already spelled out why you are utilizing these competition procedures. Can you find the price to be Fair and Reasonable? FAR gives many more avenues other than competition to determine this. If so, why waste time re-competing something that cost the taxpayers more time/money if the government (in turn society (DOD/VA/EPA/etc.)) has what is needed to complete its stated mission ready now? FSS pricing is a good compass, but you need to make sure someone is buying things at that price from them. A lot of pricing on schedule contracts is not F&R as people don't buy from them. Having an FSS contract, in and of itself, doesn't make the price F&R. Joel, good advice. Here to learn is a good start.

"It depends" is always good . . . Outside of the below, need more info (source selection procedure/complexity/SOW v. No SOW/etc.). Just generally I prefer to always include the following: - Position compared to awardee (price); - Offer for a more detailed debrief if requested.