Vern Edwards

In order for a contract to be CPPC, the fee (or some other pricing component) must be stated as a percentage in the contract. If the fee is stated as a dollar amount, then it is not a CPPC.

Universal Methods of Design by Bella Martin and Bruce Hanington, Rockport Publishers (2019). Descriptions in words and pictures of 125 design methods. Great techniques for innovators, product developers, and process streamliners, and a fun volume. Subtitle: 125 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Good companion volume: Universal Principles of Design, 2d Ed., by William Lidwell, Kritina Holden, and Jill Butler, Rockport Publishers, (2010). More descriptions in words and pictures. Another fun volume. Subtitle: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design. Because contracting practitioners must create as well as execute.

Are you going to answer my question? 😝

On page 3 the court refers to a new concept: "Schrödinger's procurement."

😂 Oh please. It would be a supplemental agreement. FAR 52.212-4(c) isn't authority for anything. It stipulates a condition precedent. They rest of your post is just diversionary. ☺️

Gravity is a natural law. F=Gm1m2 ∕r2 Theories of gravity are explanations, like Einstein's.

@joel hoffmanThat being the case, what authority do you cite for a supplemental agreement to change the contract delivery date for their mutual convenience, not due to any cause? It just works out best for both of them. No price change.

And your point is?

@joel hoffmanI don't think so, based on the plain language of the FAR, because the CO still needs the contractor's okay. The authority you refer to allows an agency to solicit and negotiate with only one source, without full and open competition, nothing more. It makes no mention of contract modification. I've pointed that out several times, and it can be verified by reading FAR 6.302-1. Moreover, if the contracting officer complies with FAR 6.302-1(d)(2) he or she might receive a competitive offer. You're right that it's not rocket science. So what? I wrote "mutual agreement" many times. What you or I did or did not do many times proves nothing except that we did or did not do it. But thanks for once again demonstrating that there is no universally acceptable solution to SF30 block 13c. This argument will go on forever. Now go ahead and have the last word. 😊

Many believe certifications to be indicia of competence. They're not.

Every agency sets its own rules about the time within which an obligation must be recorded. See, for example, the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 3. Ch. 8, Sec. 0803, Obligations, Subsec. 080301, General, Paragraph B, Responsibilities: The IDIQ contract itself creates the obligation. It is the obligating document. The task or delivery order fulfills the obligation.

@Neil RobertsPlease clarify. Are you saying that the government has "final say" over settlements between a prime and its subs? If that's what you say, then what do you mean? What kind of "final say"? To what effect?

Well, I think that SF30 block 13 is mainly for government use. I think it is documentation of the "authority" (basis) for the mod. I don't think its purpose is to provide an explanation or justification to the contractor, but for the record. As such, it relates the mod to some source. Consider, for example, a no cost termination settlement agreement. I haven't checked this morning, but I do not recall any mention of no cost settlements in the termination for convenience clause, FAR 52.249-2. They're mentioned in FAR 49.109-4, but not in the clause itself. So I don't think the CO should cite the T for C clause in documenting the basis for the SA. Anyone reading the clause will find no mention of a no cost settlement agreement. So as a CO I would cite FAR 49.109-4, which expressly authorizes such agreements. But if I were reviewing a no cost settlement agreement under SF30, and if the CO cited the T for C clause instead of 49.109-4, I would not make an issue of it. If the person bringing the mod to me for review were a trainee, I might sit them down and discuss the matter with them and explain the issues that have arisen over SF30 block 13c since time immemorial. As a young GS-05 contract specialist, I listened to a group of very senior GS-12 contract specialists argue about SF30 block 13c in 1975. I can even name the people. Some of them are still alive.

Are you asking why the CO would cite anything other than a contract clause? In other words, why would the CO cite anything from the FAR that is not in the contract?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Please clarify.

@joel hoffmanRemember that while all SAs are consummated by mutual agreement, not all are authorized by mutual agreement. COs cannot simple agree to give a contractor more time or money at its request after a change order They need the Changes clause to authorize them to agree to equitably adjust the cost or time required for performance, which is done by supplemental agreement.

Exactly. SF30 block 13 asks the CO to link a mod to some source of authority. When a FAR rule is the basis for an SA, then the CO should cite the FAR rule. But certainly not FAR 43.103(a) or 52.212-4(c), which don't authorize anything. But when the agreement is not entered into on the basis of any rule other than the common law of contracts, which says that parties that can make a contract can modify the contract, then "mutual agreement" is appropriate. But this is an old issue that has not been resolved in over 50 years.

@joel hoffmanNo more so than saying that a change order is issued pursuant to the Changes clause. Generally, under the law of contracts a change to a contract requires the mutual agreement of the parties. But sometimes a specific provision in FAR authorizes a supplemental agreement and should be cited as the source of authority. See for example FAR 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor (APR 1984): The "authority" sought is the authority to modify the contract. The authority for the supplemental agreement could be the Changes clause if the SA is for an equitable adjustment after a change order. It could be a FAR 49.109-4 for a no-cost termination settlement. And see FAR 49.603-6: "(a) This supplemental agreement [insert "modifies the contract to reflect a no-cost settlement agreement with respect to the Notice of Termination dated ____" or, if not previously terminated, "terminates the contract in its entirety"]." But when no FAR rule specifically applies to an SA, as when the parties decide to do something at their own initiative and for their mutual benefit, as when adding new work to the contract, then the authority is simply "mutual agreement."

Geez. @DeLongFAR 43.103(a) is a definition, not a source of authority! Neither is 52.212-4(c). FAR 52.212-4(c) says that you need the authority of mutual agreement in order to mod a commercial items contract. It's the agreement that provides authority, not the need for agreement. Just write "Mutual Agreement" into the space provided at Block 13c. Then the line would read: C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF: Mutual Agreement. If it makes you feel better, write: "Mutual Agreement, as required by clause 52.212-4(c)."

@joel hoffmanI know that your last post was addressed to Carl, but I'm going to respond to it. FAR 6.302-1 authorizes a contracting officer to conduct an acquisition without obtaining full and open competition by soliciting and negotiating with only one source. It does not authorize a CO to modify a contract. It makes no mention of modifying a contract. The authority sought in SF30 block 13 is the authority to modify the contract in question. In the case of a new work supplemental agreement or a change to a commercial items contract, the authority to modify the contract is obtained through mutual agreement of the parties. FAR 52.212-4(c) does not authorize anything. It states a condition that must be met in order to change the contract. Again, the authority to change the contract is obtained through mutual agreement. Mutual agreement is the authority.

If you really think about it, there is a chain of authority to modify a contract, starting, perhaps, with the ultimate authority of an authorization or appropriations act down through several links of intermediate statutory and regulatory authority, and further down to the immediate authority of contract terms. SF 30 is not clear about what level of authority the CO should cite. When I was a trainee, the senior contract specialists used to argue about this, and some said to cite the Constitution.

@joel hoffman52.212-4(c) says, "(c) Changes. Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties." "Change," as used in that clause, isn't defined by FAR, so we must resort to the ordinary dictionary definition. See FAR 1.108(a). I don't buy that adding new work to a contract is not a change. What is the "authority" for adding new work to a contract? To me, it's mutual agreement. It's the agreement of the parties that allows the CO to add the new work to the contract. True, that authority must be exercised in accordance with FAR Part 6 and other requirements. But those are "prerequisites" to the exercise of that authority, not the authority to do it, since, pursuant to the terms of the contract, it can be done only by, let's see, "mutual agreement." And FAR 52.212-4(c) is not the authority. It doesn't authorize anything. It merely sets a condition precedent to a change. By the express terms of the clause, "mutual agreement" is what's needed to authorize the change.

Hmmm. The term "period of performance" appears in FAR (48 CFR Ch. 1) only four times with reference to IDIQs. Twice with reference to the contract and twice with reference to the order: 16.504(c)(ii)(A)(4) - contract 16.505(a)(2) - contract 16,505(b)(2)(ii)(A) - order 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)(4) - order It does not appear in any of the FAR IDIQ contract clauses. "Ordering period" appears only twice in FAR, in 16.505(c)(1) and (2)(i). I could not find any use in FAR of "effective date" in connection with IDIQ contracts. So who is "we" and what is the "usually" based on? Has there been a poll or survey? I did find "effective period" in FAR 52.216-22. 😉

FAR 16.505(d) says "consistent with," not in strict accord with. If I were awarding a single-agency multiple award IDIQ contract I would write the contract to say that when providing a fair opportunity for an order I would follow FAR 36.6 procedures, but would rely on the original SF 330s, but would tailor the 36.6 procedure to reduce the time and cost of competition. Or something like that.

Yes, but FAR 16.500(d) appears to indicate that you must follow 36.6 when placing orders even under single-agency contracts. I misled you by my first post. I forgot about FAR 16.500(d). I apologize. A Mae West, but I deployed my reserve.