UGA40 Posted April 11, 2018 Report Share Posted April 11, 2018 Can you extend a task order's Period of Performance on a sole source contract through the changes clause? The PoP for the task order is well within the PoP for the base, but the task order does not contain the 52.217-8 clause. There is not an excusable delay, but an R&D effort that needs increased scope to get to a new requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted April 11, 2018 Report Share Posted April 11, 2018 24 minutes ago, UGA40 said: Can you extend a task order's Period of Performance on a sole source contract through the changes clause? No. Not through the changes clause. None of the changes clauses that you might use in an R&D contract provides for a unilateral extension of the period of performance, except as an equitable adjustment for other changes. Moreover, all changes must be within scope. However, unless the contract is multiple award, you can negotiate a supplemental agreement to extend a task order as long as the extended order will still be within the scope of the contract. You would not need a justification for doing so. Or you could just issue another order for continuation of the first order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGA40 Posted April 11, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2018 Thanks Vern. So I assume that a bilateral, equitable adjustment, through the changes clause would be the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted April 11, 2018 Report Share Posted April 11, 2018 No. Read the changes clause. Where does it say that you can issue a change order to buy more work by extending the period of performance? And extending the scope of the order is not an equitable adjustment. As a practical matter, it's a new order, but you're just appending it to the existing order. The changes clause will have nothing to do with it. If you want to extend the order, just do it. If you have to cite some authority for doing it, cite the ordering clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UGA40 Posted April 11, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2018 Vern, I misread paragraph (a)(3) of Alt V to read delivery rather than "place of delivery"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REA'n Maker Posted April 11, 2018 Report Share Posted April 11, 2018 5 hours ago, UGA40 said: ...the task order does not contain the 52.217-8 clause How about the IDV "base"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts