styrene Posted February 7 Report Share Posted February 7 Recently, the topic of utilizing / exercising 52.217-8 came up in my office. I reviewed WIFCON for discussions and I have read the GAO decision for MCS, https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-401472.pdf, and see that the basis for it being sustained was that the agency failed to evaluate the 6-month option as part of the initial competition. FAR 17.207(f) requires that a contracting officer, before exercising an option, make a written determination that the exercise of the option is in accordance with the terms of the option and the requirements of FAR sect. 17.207 and FAR Part 6, and further specifies that in order to meet the requirements of FAR Part 6 regarding full and open competition, the option must have been evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract. FAR 52.217-8 states: …The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. I believe that 52.217-8 is intended to be used when a new requirement for the services has not been awarded and that the current services need to be continued. This is something that is not necessarily anticipated to be needed at time of initial contract award and if done IAW with FAR requirements allows for a relatively painless extension when needed. To that end, I believe that the specific establishment and pricing of a -8 6-month line item as part of the initial contract award is not necessary if: 1. The initial solicitation includes the -8 clause and states that the 6-month option will be evaluated by taking one-half the cost of the final year of performance and including that amount in the total evaluated price. 2. The assumption I use, and I know that there are multiple interpretations, is when -8 states “within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract” it means the rates that are in effect at the time of exercising -8 clause. At that point, the monthly cost could be reasonably determined by dividing the total cost for the final year by 12. The -8 allows for increases the rates only if there a DOL wage determination that directly impacts the rates for the 6 months, so that could be reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract. I read on WIFCON that the “FAR Councils had opened FAR Case 2010-003 in order to revise the requirements of FAR Subpart 17.2, “Options,” as they apply to extensions of services contracts solely for the purpose of bridging to prevent a break in service. The team charged with writing a proposed rule is under its second deadline extension. A number of solutions are possible, and we presume that sooner or later the Councils will settle on one or more of them.” And that, “ a 2012 post in this Forum, a member reported that FAR Case 2010-003 was closed without action because the DAR Council and the CAA Council could not reach an agreement.” This informs me that there are multiple ways to address the usage of -8. Considering all of the above, is my interpretation and method of using 52.217-8 contradicting the FAR or the GAO decision? I appreciate the feedback. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.