Construction - Final Acceptance (BOD)

[Matt_mcginn]

deleted

[joel hoffman]

In some specific situations I could see where a benefit could be obtained to modify a contract for additional work (if the work was not wasteful). But would a post-BOD modification violate acquisition regulation? And, does anyone have good ammo to use in these situations? I am usually easy to work with and get along well in team environments, but good grief!

I'm not aware of any strict prohibition against adding in-scope work at some reasonable time after turnover. If all work is physically complete but the contract is still open, perhaps for consideration of REA's or claims, then I would think that it depends upon other considerations that you mentioned, such as waste of taxpayer's money, re-mobilization, your business judgement as to the best way to accomplish the work, etc.

Often, there are minor problems or shortcomings found in the functionality of the facility after turnover and occupancy that should be addressed to make full or better use of the facility for the user or to address genuine design errors or omissions. I think that you, as the contracting officer or project manager, should find a way that makes good business sense to address the customer's concerns, where feasible. The contract is merely the vehicle that was used to accomplish an authorized project. You should look at practical, affordable and timely methods to accomplish in-scope work (in the scope of the project and/or contract) that is necessary to achieve functionality and to facilitate operation of the facility, whether it be by change or by a separate contract effort.

A problem with accomplishing such modifications to an otherwise completed contract is the question of accountability for the work and its effect on the warranty of the original construction. If someone else comes in and modifies or adds to existing construction, it could void the construction warranty for affected original work on a straight construction contract. On a design-build contract, another entity accomplishing a building modification could affect both the warranty of design and warranty of construction for the affected original work. In those instances, it makes better sense to use the same contractor entity for changes that are found to be necessary fairly soon after acceptance and occupancy.

I would think that "nice-to-have" changes or changes which are otherwise wasteful are another situation which should be dealt with more firmly. As a Resident Engineer, I often informed our PM or the user's PM that I would challenge "The General's desires" or "The Colonel's desires" (vice a real "need") for change orders that resulted in wasteful tear-outs or wasteful spending through my chain of command or even directly to their office. Honestly - that usually worked! I found that once they realized that it was impractical or wasteful, they backed down or agreed not to pursue such changes.

But we should find a practical way to implement mission essential changes, if possible. Remember that the appropriation is for an authorized project, not necessarily for the instant contract. The contract is one vehicle available to accomplish the project.