Constricting Officer

They have the choice to accept it or not. I know no CO that would T4D them in administration if they do not. With that, several I have talked too in the construction realm, in which I currently reside as a CO, said they would lose most of their workforce if they enforced it. I do believe this is going to get interesting. We should all share the effects/trends we are seeing moving forward.

No. That clause is only present in the patent IDIQ to address the appropriation's availability for the guaranteed minimum. It is telling the contractor that even though the contract is awarded, we don't have the funding (consideration) to bind the contract and we'll let you know when we do. It has nothing to do with a TO 4.5 years down the road. What about an ID/Requirements contract? You wouldn't have -18 there because the consideration is a promise to order all items/services needed from them. There is no appropriation needed. Are you suggesting we add -18 to all ID/R contracts just in case a TO down the road may be in this situation with funding availability/end of year workload? It intrigues you that I issued a RFP and let the contractor know that the funds to award a contract are not yet available/appropriated?

Apologies for wording. I was in a hurry What I mean is that the modification may involve a different FY appropriation - Separate action concerning funding. Example - Service contract award in/with FY20 funding being modified, within scope, in FY21 will be subject to a different appropriation. It seems logical that a clause added to the initial award (FY20) would not automatically apply to a separate appropriation (FY21) down the road.

Chapter 14 (dol.gov) 14b03(a): "Based on the language of the SCA, if a contract is “entered into” by or with the government, and if its principal purpose is “to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees,” it is subject to the SCA. See 41 USC 351(a)."

Agree with @ji20874. They are, for government owned equipment. If the government leases an office building and it gets hit by a bomb in the middle of the night, we don't award a design-build contract to rebuild it. It is on the lessor. No different than this leased equipment. Do they also want to start awarding service contracts to cover the 3-year warranty that comes with an MRI that was purchased?

No. A change order is a separate contract and the language in the clause (as outlined early in the thread) restricts it to "this contract." Not binding - If the clause is used in the change order and funds are not available at the time the modification is awarded. Additional notification required. Binding - If the funds are available when the modification is awarded. There is no need for the clause to be present in the situation. Only if it does apply. Adding language that says something not present, doesn't apply is a waste of time.

I concur with this statement as well, concerning a "contract matter." Two contract matters are what you can order (supplies/services covered) and when you can order (between X and X dates). I have yet to see an IDIQ that addresses the FY appropriations that can be used (I am sure there are some (special programs), but few). The CO who awarded the IDIQ with that clause present was likely doing so at the EOFY and awaiting funding for the guaranteed minimum in October. If a future task order is in the same situation, then put the language in there as advised above. In my mind, the task order placed three months later with current FY funds in hand is not subject to that clause. If this is the case, then the clause is there for use, but does not automatically apply to all. I sent a proposal request a few weeks ago to a single award ID/IQ holder we use for simple construction projects (<$500K). I knew it was EOY with small a chance of getting it negotiated and awarded with current FY$ I had, so I added the clause. I don't need to consult the parent contract to see if the clause is there. It is a matter of appropriation law, related to the task order. Not the parent contract.

What is the justification/purpose for this approach, if one was provided. I have an itching feeling the team that leased the equipment forgot to have the lessor provide these services in the price.

I am good as long as such a statement is present. Without a doubt.

To play "Devil's Advocate," the language present in 52.232-18 is as follows: "Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer." It doesn't say this and resulting contracts (DO/TOs). I don't see how this particular language would flow from one contract action (IDC solicitation/award) down to a separate (DO/TO solicitation/award) contract action. Splitting hairs I know, but all parent contract's clauses do not flow down to resulting contract actions.

What does the prescription for the clause say? Is this "issue an award" considered a "contract action?"

I don't see how this project is different than anything we have already. Sure it has the "AI" wording attached to it but the ability to generate something, based on user's input, is something already in use and have for a long time. We could use something updated for sure, but I don't see anything "intelligent" about the CS/CO "user stories" you posted. Vern is right, but we don't need "AI" for this. Government wide contract's with "ordering officers" or increasing the government purchase card limit to the SAT would suffice. On the flip side, if it does replace a lot of CS/CO positions, then great. The ability to copy, paste and hit a button does not make a capable CS/CO. The ability to logically think, taking all available information into account, and making a sound decision does. Sadly, I have yet to see a program in the government that shrinks the government's workforce, just leaves employees with less to do for the same paycheck.

Good - The CO should make the best decision, given all information available, at the time and move on. If the below doesn't give you some insight then we can continue: This is one of those conversations that will never be agreed on 100%. It's easy to debate for/against either side.

All caught up and I fear we are going to end up readdressing a few other post we wasted several pages of commentary on. I digress.

A PoP is written into the contract (services (not including construction) in experience) as a time constraint on the contractor to complete a task or a number of tasks (SOW/PWS). Other terms used, such as Notice to Proceed (NTP) and After Receipt of Order (ARO), apply the same constraint: - Construction NTP – Once issued, you have 400 days to complete. - Supply ARO – Once received, you have 30 days to deliver. These time constraints only apply to the contractor and do not limit the government from accepting supplies, services or construction after their expiration. Only one aspect of a contract. Performance and payment bonds in construction must be received before a NTP can be issued. PoP in services generally do not include providing final invoice, release of claims and other final items needed to close out the contract. What about the hundreds of thousands of contracts across the federal government that haven't been closed out because the contractors have not invoiced for remaining $8 left on the order? I am sure Vern's advisement will be more informative, but it has been a slow morning so thought I would give it a go.