Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

DeLong

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Gravity is just a theory yo. /jk
  2. @Vern Edwards Just read your post on asking questions and I see that I had a few assumptions in this question. I was brought up as modification authorities are either a) the clause from your contract that authorized the change; or if there was no clause than the only other option was b) Mutual agreement; as shown in this quote from the "DAU modification authority decision help guide": "The vast majority of contract changes are effected by the authority of the existing terms and conditions (i.e., clauses) within a contract. When so, that particular clause shall be used as the authority for the change. In the rare event that a change is necessitated by a condition not specifically covered within a contract clause, then common practice is to state as the authority: “Mutual agreement of the contracting parties”. The checkbox in front of Block 13C would be checked, and this phrase would be typed in block 13C." Further, as a minor point, it was just hammered into me and is now habit to use the part 43 cite when making mutual agreements; although I do agree that the cite is not required. I see from the conversation that using 41 U.S.C. 4106(c)(2) and FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) isn't wrong to cite per se, although in DoD I feel that it would be "wrong" in that there would be few reviewers who would sign off on it; at least in the offices I worked. I'm not in those offices anymore though, so need to adjust my thinking. Again, super interesting conversation here. Food for my thoughts.
  3. I agree with the above that the modification needs to be bilateral; looking through the arguments I think everyone is agreeing with that. I would personally have elected to cite 43.103(a) Mutual Agreement on the SF30; although I certainly see merit in the argument that 52.212-4(c) could have been cited and wouldn't look twice at that during an audit or peer review as long as it was bilateral. I don't see any major push that the sole source justifications ARE a reasonable modification authority for the SF30; just that its probably in the category of something "reviewing authorities to agree to"; which puts in context to me that it was not wrong to feel surprised by the experience of running into a KO and legal team who argued 41 U.S.C. 4106(c)(2) and FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) as what should be used as authorities. Thank you for your responses.
  4. I just had an odd exchange with another KO over the last several days regarding modification authorities to use in block 13 of a SF30. For new sole source work to an existing order, they correctly used FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) in their justification. I personally would assume that one of three authorities would be used in the mod; 52.212-4(c) Changes (which is in the base), 43.103(a) Mutual Agreement of the Parties, or 52.217-8 as the work was arguably an extension... that was not the debate though. Instead, in block 13 the KO used "41 U.S.C. 4106(c)(2) and FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B)" which are sole source justifications; but I did not think them modification authorities. When I asked this question of my agency's legal counsel, both confirmed that the KO was correct in their use of 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) as "Based on the fact that this modification was done through a J&A, the J&A authority (which allowed the CO to take the action) should be the modification authority." This was surprising to me. Am I wrong to be surprised? Do others use 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) as an authority for sole source modifications? Thank you for your responses.
×
×
  • Create New...