Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'scope'.
Found 2 results
Situation: Agency awarded a 5 year FFP contract for $240K (5 year total). Contract is currently in the first option year ($40K). Agency would now like to add some additional work to the contract. The nature of the additional work is very closely related to the work already being done under the contract (it would not result in a material change of the contract). Cost for the additional work has not yet been determined (agency is in the process of determining the cost parameters for a modification within scope). Furthermore, the RFP included this type of work in it - hence, offerors would reasonably have anticipated a modification of this nature at the time of award. Requirement was competed using SAP. Question: The nature of the work would itself not result in the modification being out of scope - but what are the cost limitations on ensuring the modification remains in scope? Would a modification for more than the micro-purchase threshold need to be either competed or justified with a sole source justification? Some individuals utilize a 'rule of thumb' percentage for cost that can be added in a modification to keep it with in the scope of the contract, but I have found no actual references to back that up. Upon reading the following post, it seems as though the cost limit to ensure the modification remains in scope could be the micro-purchase threshold - but I'm not sure. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1173-change-in-scope-qty-and-delivery-schedule-change/ However, part of the discussion in the post below indicates that as long as the nature of the additional work itself was included in the RFP, the modification for additional work would be with in the scope of the competition (even when adding the corresponding cost for that additional work, regardless of exceeding the micro-purchase threshold): http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=801 I'm aware of the regulation that FAR Part 6 does not apply when using simplified acquisition procedures, but from my understanding of FAR 13.501, a sole source acquisition for a SAP requirement (in this case, a modification for additional work) would still require a sole source justification to be drafted and posted, etc., and I'm having trouble reconciling the guidance from these 2 references. Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.
My Procurement Exec and one Attorney believe GAO recently used the so-called "10%" rule to determine a contract modification was within scope and therefore denied a protest. Neither has been able to produce anything other than their own recollection. Everything I have found in my previous and recent research indicates they are seriously mistaken. So if anyone out there has seen anything from GAO to support their statements, please post a link.