Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

All, thank you for your insight and help in advance.  I am a previous Government contract specialist working for industry now, and although I understand great deference and latitude is provided a contracting officer in his/her decisions, I am not fully knowledgeable of how far this deference extends and if I have any recourse in my present situation.  Our company was awarded a TO construction project three years ago under a parent IDIQ contract.  We substantially completed the TO project two years ago, but we did not perform closeout as the Government initiated a couple contract mods for new work, similar in scope, to be added to the TO.  We submitted proposals for each requested modification.  We waited for an extended period of time on a decision that didn't come before notifying the contracting officer that we had to demobilize.  We left our trailer on site and implemented protective measures to protect our work.  The Task Order POP expired after we demobilized. Two years have passed since TO expiration. We have been paying a subcontractor to maintain the protective measures for two years.  The parent IDIQ contract has not expired.  The Government has recently reached out to us and is ready to execute the mods.  However, based on the Government's counter offer this will be a losing proposition for us.  The contracting officer has notified us that he/she will execute a unilateral mod for this new work if we don't sign the mod.  We would like to recoup our costs for protecting the site for the past two years, but this is not incorporated into the mod (future mod promised).  Until now, we have had a good relationship with the Government team and would enjoy completing this new work, but we can't afford the anticipated loss.  Can the Govt unilaterally execute a mod for new work on an expired TO?  I respectfully request any advice that you can provide.  

Respectfully, Boomer 635 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer is yes.  There are few limits on the time at which the government can issue a change order under a contract.  Whether there is a specific reason why such a change order cannot be issued in your case, no one can answer.  However, if one is issued, you are likely entitled to an equitable adjustment in the contract price.  That would be the place to recover your subcontract costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say this is new work -- therefore, the Changes clause does not apply, right?  I have only questions, no recommendations-- answers to questions might help me to give recommendations.

Have you exhausted all of your negotiation acumen to negotiate a price that you can live with?

The contracting officer can do anything he or she wants, but I am not certain that such a unilateral modification will withstand scrutiny.  Are you prepared to challenge the validity of the unilateral modification as outside the scope of your task order?

Do you know the authority for the proposed unilateral modification?  If it is the Changes clause, are you prepared to submit a request for equitable adjustment amenable to the Changes clause in the contract?  Are you willing to file a claim under the contract's Disputes clause if you are unable to come to agreement on the price of the work?

Did the Government accept and make final payment for the previously-completed work?  Are you willing to file a claim to force the Government to accept and/or make final payment for the previously-completed work?

Was your decision to remain on site even after demobilization your business decision?  Or was it Government direction?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boomer635 said:

Two years have passed since TO expiration. We have been paying a subcontractor to maintain the protective measures for two years.  The parent IDIQ contract has not expired.  The Government has recently reached out to us and is ready to execute the mods.  However, based on the Government's counter offer this will be a losing proposition for us.  The contracting officer has notified us that he/she will execute a unilateral mod for this new work if we don't sign the mod.  We would like to recoup our costs for protecting the site for the past two years, but this is not incorporated into the mod (future mod promised).  Until now, we have had a good relationship with the Government team and would enjoy completing this new work, but we can't afford the anticipated loss.  Can the Govt unilaterally execute a mod for new work on an expired TO?  I respectfully request any advice that you can provide.  

Here's  my analysis:  The work under the task order was substantially complete when your company, in response to a government inquiry, offered to perform what you have called "new work." Your company has apparently let the offer remain open for two years.

By "new work" I presume that you mean that the work to be done is not within the general scope of the work previously specified in the task order.

The government has now, after two years, rejected your company's offer and made what is, in effect, a counteroffer. Your company does not want to accept that counteroffer. And its rejection of your two-year-old offer has taken that offer off the table unless your company extends it.

According to you, the government has threatened to unilaterally modify the task order to add the work to the two-year-old task order. Under what contractual authority would it do that?

If the work in question is, in fact, "new," i.e. beyond the general scope of the task order, then the government cannot enforce its threat pursuant to the standard changes clause. The CO would have to issue a new task order, in which case your price for the "new work" would not be limited to an equitable adjustment under the changes clause. It would be limited only by the pricing terms of the IDIQ contract. (Consenting to perform under a "change order" might be pure folly on your part.)

You say the iDIQ contract is still in effect. We do not know its terms. Would it allow the government to issue a new task order to do the work under the IDIQ without first negotiating an advance agreement as to pricing?

I suspect that your company wants the work, so plan to somehow become a brilliant and diplomatic negotiator in coming days. Land the job, but to your employer's advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

The short answer is yes.  There are few limits on the time at which the government can issue a change order under a contract.  Whether there is a specific reason why such a change order cannot be issued in your case, no one can answer.  However, if one is issued, you are likely entitled to an equitable adjustment in the contract price.  That would be the place to recover your subcontract costs.

Retreadfed,   Thank you for your response.  Based on the letter from the CO, an REA is the route the Govt wishes us to pursue; however, after two years of waiting I do not believe there is an urgency that would require us to begin work and negotiate afterwards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ji20874 said:

You say this is new work -- therefore, the Changes clause does not apply, right?  I have only questions, no recommendations-- answers to questions might help me to give recommendations.

Have you exhausted all of your negotiation acumen to negotiate a price that you can live with?

The contracting officer can do anything he or she wants, but I am not certain that such a unilateral modification will withstand scrutiny.  Are you prepared to challenge the validity of the unilateral modification as outside the scope of your task order?

Do you know the authority for the proposed unilateral modification?  If it is the Changes clause, are you prepared to submit a request for equitable adjustment amenable to the Changes clause in the contract?  Are you willing to file a claim under the contract's Disputes clause if you are unable to come to agreement on the price of the work?

Did the Government accept and make final payment for the previously-completed work?  Are you willing to file a claim to force the Government to accept and/or make final payment for the previously-completed work?

Was your decision to remain on site even after demobilization your business decision?  Or was it Government direction?

 

ji20874,  Thank you for your reply.  I describe the additional work as "new", as it was not in the original scope, but the work is similar to the original work.  it is quite possible had the Govt anticipated this additional work in advance it could have been included within the original scope.  To be more specific, we installed a pipeline and the Govt wants us to add taps off of this line to facilities that are not in the original scope.  

I have not exhausted all negotiation acumen. I hope to have more based on recommendations here.   

Are you prepared to challenge the validity of the unilateral modification as outside the scope of your task order?  Yes, if necessary, but only if I determine it is truly out of scope. No, I am not willing to file a claim.  I believe the CO will use the Changes Clause and deem this work in scope. 

There remains a small portion of the work to be completed from the original scope.  We are paid to date on the original TO scope, but not the additional time invested over the past two years. We remained on site to keep a presence as our project is not complete.  The Govt did not suspend work, or issue a stop work.  We demobilized as a business decision to hold costs to a minimum.

During the 2 year delay, our company did participate in all project conference calls with the Gov COR and provided all reporting as required by the original TO, although the POP end date had passed.  We did not abandon the job.  We have submitted an REA for the costs incurred; however, the GOV states that our direct time by senior leadership oversight during this time period is our overhead.  I contend that since the POP expired, our senior leadership time is a direct cost and no longer indirect.   

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boomer,

If the Government decides not to proceed with the modification, but chooses instead to end the task order, do you have any basis for expecting payment for the two years of staying on site?

I ask because you skirted one of my questions.  I asked if your decision to remain on site even after demobilization was your business decision, and you answered that your decision to demobilize was your business decision.  This kind of sparring and evasion will impede my ability or willingness to make any recommendation.  The facts matter.  It really matters whether your remaining on site (for security) was your business decision or was Government direction.  Your decision to demobilize (except for security) is irrelevant to this entire discussion.

I also asked if the work was complete, and it now seems the work is not complete.  Was it your decision not to complete the work?  If YES, and inasmuch as there was no stop-work order or suspension order, all the costs associated with protecting your unfinished work might well be your costs to bear, with no increase in the contract price (assuming this is a fixed-price contract).  If this is true, maybe you really need to cozy up to the contracting officer and negotiate as good a deal as you can -- you may have no basis for demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Here's  my analysis:  The work under the task order was substantially complete when your company, in response to a government inquiry, offered to perform what you have called "new work." Your company has apparently let the offer remain open for two years.

By "new work" I presume that you mean that the work to be done is not within the general scope of the work previously specified in the task order.

The government has now, after two years, rejected your company's offer and made what is, in effect, a counteroffer. Your company does not want to accept that counteroffer. And its rejection of your two-year-old offer has taken that offer off the table unless your company extends it.

According to you, the government has threatened to unilaterally modify the task order to add the work to the two-year-old task order. Under what contractual authority would it do that?

If the work in question is, in fact, "new," i.e. beyond the general scope of the task order, then the government cannot enforce its threat pursuant to the standard changes clause. The CO would have to issue a new task order, in which case your price for the "new work" would not be limited to an equitable adjustment under the changes clause. It would be limited only by the pricing terms of the IDIQ contract. (Consenting to perform under a "change order" might be pure folly on your part.)

You say the iDIQ contract is still in effect. We do not know its terms. Would it allow the government to issue a new task order to do the work under the IDIQ without first negotiating an advance agreement as to pricing?

I suspect that your company wants the work, so plan to somehow become a brilliant and diplomatic negotiator in coming days. Land the job, but to your employer's advantage. 

Mr. Edwards,  Two years ago, we were enthused to accept additional work; however, after two years and the Govts low counter offer we are concerned we will lose money.  Yes, we have let the offer remain open for two years.  

Correct, the new work is similar work, but was not in the original scope.  It is possible had the Govt anticipated this work that they may have included it in the original scope.  

If we cannot equitably agree on a price, I would like to remove the offer from the table.

In regard to the CO threatening unilateral action, I am not familiar with what authority he/she would use. I was hoping that the expiration of the TO would provide me leverage to leave the table if a reasonable price cannot be negotiated.

Based on information I have provided, is this "new work"?  Due to the work being similar in nature does it preclude it from being deemed "new"?  It is not in the original scope, nor was it anticipated. I believe in consenting to perform the "change order" on the Government's terms it would put our company in a difficult position. 

Yes, the Govt can issue a new TO for this requirement.  I believe it would need to be competed within the MATOC pool.

I believe I can negotiate this mod effectively if I am confident the CO cannot issue this mod unilaterally.  This I believe hinges on the definition of "new work".

Thank you for your help. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boomer635 said:

If we cannot equitably agree on a price, I would like to remove the offer from the table.

The government's power to accept the offer was probably terminated when it made its counteroffer. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 39:

Quote

(1) A counter-offer is an offer made by an offeree to his offeror relating to the same matter as the original offer and proposing a substituted bargain differing from that proposed by the original offer.

(2) An offeree's power of acceptance is terminated by his making of a counter-offer, unless the offeror has manifested a contrary intention or unless the counter-offer manifests a contrary intention of the offeree.

A better knowledge of contract law and of the terms of the contracts you deal with would be helpful to you in future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Boomer635 said:

Based on information I have provided, is this "new work"?  Due to the work being similar in nature does it preclude it from being deemed "new"?  It is not in the original scope, nor was it anticipated. 

You're asking me? You called it "new work" in your original post.

15 hours ago, Boomer635 said:

...the Government initiated a couple contract mods for new work, similar in scope...

"New work" is contracting jargon for "out of scope." You did not post in the Beginner's Forum, so I assumed that you knew what you were talking about when you said the prospective mod was to be for "new work."

Scope is a complicated matter, requiring knowledge of the terms of the contract, of the order, of the nature of the work originally required, of the nature of the work to be required, and of other facts. None of us at Wifcon can know whether the work to be required is beyond the scope of the original order, and if you don't know you better find someone who has the knowledge, time, and inclination to sit down with you and think it through. The fact that the work to be done is "similar" to the work that was done does not necessarily mean it is within scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Boomer,

If the Government decides not to proceed with the modification, but chooses instead to end the task order, do you have any basis for expecting payment for the two years of staying on site?

I ask because you skirted one of my questions.  I asked if your decision to remain on site even after demobilization was your business decision, and you answered that your decision to demobilize was your business decision.  This kind of sparring and evasion will impede my ability or willingness to make any recommendation.  The facts matter.  It really matters whether your remaining on site (for security) was your business decision or was Government direction.  Your decision to demobilize (except for security) is irrelevant to this entire discussion.

I also asked if the work was complete, and it now seems the work is not complete.  Was it your decision not to complete the work?  If YES, and inasmuch as there was no stop-work order or suspension order, all the costs associated with protecting your unfinished work might well be your costs to bear, with no increase in the contract price (assuming this is a fixed-price contract).  If this is true, maybe you really need to cozy up to the contracting officer and negotiate as good a deal as you can -- you may have no basis for demands.

ji20874,  I appreciate your response.  I am not intentionally skirting a response to your question.  The government did not direct us to demobilize. However, we did provide them notice of delay two years ago stating that if we did not hear back regarding the RFPs by a specified date we would be demobilizing.  We are not on site.  Our trailer is on site but we do not occupy it.  Although we are substantially complete, we do have some site work to complete from the original scope.  Our work is underground, so we left our trench boxes and steel plates in place and a subcontractor insures they are maintained. That is the extent of site work.  I have learned, and unbeknownst to my contracting officer until recently, that one of the modification requirements intended for us, has already been executed through another contract to another contractor and is complete.  This was performed through another contracting office.   They tied in to our work to complete this.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought about updating your schedule and finishing the work?  Even if you are hopeful for the new work, updating your schedule (see contract clause at FAR 52.236-15) might alert the Government that they need to come to terms with you to get the new work started sooner rather than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The government's power to accept the offer was probably terminated when it made its counteroffer. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 39:

A better knowledge of contract law and of the terms of the contracts you deal with would be helpful to you in future

Mr. Edwards, Thank you for educating me on how the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 39 applies to my situation and I will apply it in the future.  I do read the FAR extensively, supplements, case law, online articles and WIFCON to improve my contracting skills.  However, learning from experience is certainly more interesting.  Thank you for your patience.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

You're asking me? You called it "new work" in your original post.

"New work" is contracting jargon for "out of scope." You did not post in the Beginner's Forum, so I assumed that you knew what you were talking about when you said the prospective mod was to be for "new work."

Scope is a complicated matter, requiring knowledge of the terms of the contract, of the order, of the nature of the work originally required, of the nature of the work to be required, and of other facts. None of us at Wifcon can know whether the work to be required is beyond the scope of the original order, and if you don't know you better find someone who has the knowledge, time, and inclination to sit down with you and think it through. The fact that the work to be done is "similar" to the work that was done does not necessarily mean it is within scope.

As a contractor I consider this new work, which is out of scope.  Although similar in nature, it is not in the original TO contract, drawings or scope, or schedule.   However a contracting officer, pushed for time, may regard this as in-scope, which I believe is what's happening here.  I'm sure the changes clause will be used and I also know the CO is given wide latitude in their business judgement.  I will not pursue this above the COs head as I do not want to kill a relationship.  However, I don't want to be held over a barrel and forced to accept without reasonable consideration.  I'm seeking more leverage on this issue as I negotiate.    I appreciate the LAW citation you offered,  Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 39.  This is very helpful.  

As a contract specialist when preparing my documentation for approval, it was always impressed upon me by legal to make sure my verbiage in certain mods stated, "This is not new work, but the continuation of existing work."  It has become a habit of mine to interchange "out-of-scope" & "new work".  I will be more specific on this forum in the future.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

Have you thought about updating your schedule and finishing the work?  Even if you are hopeful for the new work, updating your schedule (see contract clause at FAR 52.236-15) might alert the Government that they need to come to terms with you to get the new work started sooner rather than later.

We have provided an updated remobilization schedule based on our subcontractors availability, but have not provided a schedule to perform the new work. 

We have submitted an REA for the costs incurred during the Government's delay.  Although not onsite, we do participate in all Gov COR meetings and provide updates and reporting as directed by the original TO contract.  The Gov has pushed back on the hours submitted that our senior leadership has completed (i.e., Program Manager, Corporate Safety Officer, etc...) as the Gov states that these hours are to be applied to OH.  However, I believe that once the TO POP ended these labor category hours are no longer indirect, but direct costs to this project.  Our original FFP was based on the original lump sum pricing that included OH for that POP period, nothing beyond that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boomer,

Now you are introducing something wholly new -- a Government delay.  I asked earlier if you had any basis for expecting payment for the two years of staying on site, and you didn't answer that question -- but now, I suppose the answer to that question is YES.  Good luck -- negotiate the best deal you can.  I cannot discern any reason for any entitlement at all based on what has been shared above, but you know the facts and we don't.

I suppose the REA will be based on para. (b) of the contract clause at FAR 52.242-14, Suspension of Work?  If so, remember that your entitlement to recover costs only reaches to 20 days before the date of your notice contemplated by para. (c) of the clause.  I hope you gave this notice two years ago!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the unfinished work directly relatable to the “new work”, e.g, you left open trenches so you could tap in at those locations?  If not, then why didn’t you complete the original scope of work? If not, I see no basis for a “government delay” to completion of the task order. If you had completed the current contract requirements, the government adding additional work after two years would likely be “out of scope. Thus, mutual agreement on terms would be necessary and the changes clause would not be applicable to the new work . Thus, no unilateral authority.

However, by voluntarily delaying completion for two years, I think you may be responsible for your own extended costs and indirect overhead during that period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Hoffman,

Thank you for your response.  I have been directed by my company to assist in this matter and have not had all the facts as timely as I have needed them; however, as I continue to pose questions and review project communications the issue is becoming more clear.  The old requirement involved installing a new pipe line then demolishing the old.  The Government discovered that the old line still provided service to the General's quarters and the local base fast food establishment.  The new line does not.  The Government completely missed it.  The Gov did not issue a suspension of work in writing, but did through verbal communication.  The new line was completed two years ago (without commissiong), but we could not perform demo of old line.  We informed the Gov of delay on their change order decision and then proceeded to demobilize as it was costing us money.  The Gov demanded we leave all trench boxes and steel plates in place.  Two years have passed and the Gov is now wanting to negotiate the quote we provided in 2019.  We have been unable to submit billing for our subcontractor and trench box/plate materials as they are not in the current TO contract.  The Gov is now negotiating down to the smallest detail on the cost of every feature of the new work (taps), to the point we have determined we will lose money.  The contracting officer has even stated that they are only willing to pay for our heavy equipment (subcontractor owned) when the equipment is actually running... not turned off.  He/She also stated that our out-of-town sub should hire local equipment operators to operate his equipment keep from paying per diem.  He prefers to use his own heavy equip operators. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boomer635 said:

Mr. Hoffman,

Thank you for your response.  I have been directed by my company to assist in this matter and have not had all the facts as timely as I have needed them; however, as I continue to pose questions and review project communications the issue is becoming more clear.  The old requirement involved installing a new pipe line then demolishing the old.  The Government discovered that the old line still provided service to the General's quarters and the local base fast food establishment.  The new line does not.  The Government completely missed it.  The Gov did not issue a suspension of work in writing, but did through verbal communication.  The new line was completed two years ago (without commissiong), but we could not perform demo of old line.  We informed the Gov of delay on their change order decision and then proceeded to demobilize as it was costing us money.  The Gov demanded we leave all trench boxes and steel plates in place.  Two years have passed and the Gov is now wanting to negotiate the quote we provided in 2019.  We have been unable to submit billing for our subcontractor and trench box/plate materials as they are not in the current TO contract.  The Gov is now negotiating down to the smallest detail on the cost of every feature of the new work (taps), to the point we have determined we will lose money.  The contracting officer has even stated that they are only willing to pay for our heavy equipment (subcontractor owned) when the equipment is actually running... not turned off.  He/She also stated that our out-of-town sub should hire local equipment operators to operate his equipment keep from paying per diem.  He prefers to use his own heavy equip operators. 

@Boomer635Do you want something from the members of this forum? Information? Advice? Or are you just telling us your company's story?

If you want information or advice, please tell us what you kind of information or advice you want.

Keep in mind that we cannot give you legal advice, but we can offer opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your task order appears to be open if the government did nothing to delete the uncompleted work. You said that it wasn’t possible to complete the work (remove the old water line) before connecting the General’s quarters and fast food store to the new line via a design change. 

5 hours ago, Boomer635 said:

We have been unable to submit billing for our subcontractor and trench box/plate materials as they are not in the current TO contract. 

They obviously are included in the still open task order. I don’t understand what you mean by “are not in the current TO contract.” If they were in the task order and if the government required you to keep them on the job and if the task order is still open and if you have incurred standby costs for delayed completion…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Your task order appears to be open if the government did nothing to delete the uncompleted work. You said that it wasn’t possible to complete the work (remove the old water line) before connecting the General’s quarters and fast food store to the new line via a design change. 

They obviously are included in the still open task order. I don’t understand what you mean by “are not in the current TO contract.” If they were in the task order and if the government required you to keep them on the job and if the task order is still open and if you have incurred standby costs for delayed completion…

When demobilizing, the Government directed us to leave the boxes/plates in place and CO would cover the cost when he/she received additional funding and executed the mod for the additional work.  It was the government that stated we could not bill for the boxes/plates as it would have to be included in the future mod.  However, there is still sufficient funding left to commission the new line and demo the old line.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2021 at 1:51 PM, Boomer635 said:

The contracting officer has notified us that he/she will execute a unilateral mod for this new work if we don't sign the mod.  We would like to recoup our costs for protecting the site for the past two years, but this is not incorporated into the mod (future mod promised).  Until now, we have had a good relationship with the Government team and would enjoy completing this new work, but we can't afford the anticipated loss.  Can the Govt unilaterally execute a mod for new work on an expired TO? 

I learned an interesting thing that I did not know until this morning. It has to do with a decision by the ASBCA, URS Federal Support Services, Inc., ASBCA 59998, 21-1 BCA ¶ _____, May 27,2020. Here is how Prof. Nash has described the matter in an article to be published next month:

Quote

URS Federal Support Services, Inc., ASBCA 59998, 21-1 BCA ¶ ________ (May 27, 2020), 63 GC ¶ 158, addresses the issue of the board’s jurisdiction over the contractor’s deemed denial appeal of a unilateral modification issued by a Contracting Officer to force the contractor to take a disputed action. The modification had none of the indicia of a CO’s final decision, but the Government argued that the board had no jurisdiction because the contractor had not appealed within 90 days of receipt of the modification. The board ruled that the contractor had the right to treat the modification as a final decision of the CO, but the Government did not have the right to treat the modification as a final decision for purposes of requiring appeal within 90 days.

Apparently, the ruling was not a matter of first impression. See Boeing Co., ASBCA 37579, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,992, in which the board said:

Quote

 

Normally, one of the hallmarks of contracting officers' decisions asserting Government claims is compliance with certain formalities, such as notice of appeal rights, prescribed by CDA section 5(a) and agency implementing regulations. E.g., DAR 1–314(i) (1980), FAR 33.011 (1984). Absent such notice, a unilateral contract modification will not usually be treated as a contracting officer's decision from which an appeal may be taken.

However, “[t]he formalities associated with the content of the contracting officer's decision are for the protection of the contractor.” Thus, we have carved a narrow exception to the foregoing rule in cases where a full-blown dispute between the parties has crystalized and the Government has issued a unilateral contract modification asserting its right to payment of money or to otherwise adjust the contract terms, such as to reduce the contract price. Building Services Unlimited, Inc., ASBCA No. 33283, 87–3 BCA ¶ 20,135 at 101,931; see Hunter Manufacturing Co., ASBCA No. 34209, 87–2 BCA ¶ 19,903.

In this case, Boeing's protest over the expiration of the FY 1988 option had ripened into a full-blown dispute by the time the contracting officer issued unilateral modification P00154. Thus, we treat this modification, asserting the Government's right to adjust the contract terms to permit the late exercise of an option and perpetuate contractual ceiling prices, as a contracting officer's decision asserting a Government claim from which Boeing could properly appeal.

Since Boeing could have appealed directly from the “unilateral option exercise” modification, we disregard the unnecessary exchange of paper engendered by Boeing's ostensible request for a contracting officer's decision and hold that Boeing's 14 September 1988 notice of appeal was properly taken from the contracting officer's decision reflected in unilateral modification P00154.

 

I have nothing to say about how if at all those rulings apply to Boomer635's tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2021 at 3:51 PM, Boomer635 said:

Can the Govt unilaterally execute a mod for new work on an expired TO?  I respectfully request any advice that you can provide.  

Assuming that the changes clause is still applicable, yes.

What Changes clause is in the contract and/or task order?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boomer365

Why did you wait until today to share that the Government directed you to leave the work unfinished for all this time?  If you want advice, you have to be willing to tell the story.  We're getting bits and pieces, and we're not getting answers from you to our questions.  I hope you are relying on an attorney with whom you have been candid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...