Sunstrider Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 Assume the following: 5-year non-commercial, severable services contract The Government has communicated its preliminary intent to exercise the upcoming option, which begins in less than 30 days The Government must issue a change order to revise the Performance Work Statement/associated Contract Data Requirements List The Government intends for the change order to be effective from the next option through contract completion, not the date of change order issuance May the CO combine unilateral exercise of the option and issuance of this change order in one contract action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 Yes. Then, a subsequent modification may be needed for whatever equitable adjustment is negotiated because of the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 10 hours ago, ji20874 said: Yes. Then, a subsequent modification may be needed for whatever equitable adjustment is negotiated because of the change. Ya beat me to it, ji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 Contrary view, is it good contract hygiene? I for one would think it more appropriate to separate the issues. Change Order and follow on equitable adjustment can become cumbersome. Do either but look forward. Tongue in Cheek but Seriously - Now what block do you check in Section 13 on the SF30 and cite as authority. Note form says "Check One" and change order is specific. Does this not imply handling the two matters separately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwomack Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, C Culham said: what block do you check in Section 13 on the SF30 13D "Other" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted July 12, 2019 Report Share Posted July 12, 2019 I thought about that. And in my own practice, I would probably do it as two modifications (both unilateral). But since both actions can be done unilaterally, and since both actions affect the same work and period, I don't object to doing both actions in one modification. I hope the contracting officer will make it very clear that the modification does two actions, and handles each of them separately in the single modification. If I did these two actions in a single modification, I would want to check both 13A and B (will the system let me?), and clearly indicate at the top of block 14 that 13A applies to the change order covered below, and that 13D applies to the option exercise covered below, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts