Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. 1 a) Before tossing away any use of "within" in the option clause 52.217-9, consider the possibility of exercising an option after contract completion date: see FAR 17.204 paragraphs b through d: "(b) The contract shall state the period within which the option may be exercised. (c) The period shall be set so as to provide the contractor adequate lead time to ensure continuous production. (d) The period may extend beyond the contract completion date for service contracts. This is necessary for situations when exercise of the option would result in the obligation of funds that are not available in the fiscal year in which the contract would otherwise be completed." A mistaken conception of "contract expiration" could contribute to the loss of this as an authorized flexibility, especially if experimental edits of the -9 clause become popular...why voluntarily surrender territory already given us by regulation? Note: Vern Edwards advised in an earlier Forum discussion concerning contract expiration: "Contracts don't have expiration dates. Contracts have (1) a delivery date, (2) a completion date, or (3) a period of performance. (In addition, an IDIQ contract has an ordering period.) Contracts do not "expire" until all obligations of both parties have been fulfilled."
  3. Yesterday
  4. Hmmm, more indication of an ambiguity... i personnally don’t think that is a logical interpretation. There would seldom be funding available 2 months (55 days) prior to contracts renewing on or soon after the start of the next FY.
  5. As written, I would say it means within 5 days of the preliminary written notice.
  6. Maybe you dont need the FAR Councils nod..... https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/448540
  7. Well that scenario would be covered by the reworded clause entitled “option to extend the period of performance”. So yes.
  8. I see. If this is the true intent of the clause, then there's the heads-up provided with the preliminary notice of intent, and then there's actual exercise of the option which requires a minimum lead time for the Contractor to duly maintain continuous performance. This seems very reasonable, especially since the timeliness requirements of these notices are always tailored/negotiated up front... 👍
  9. Last week
  10. FAR 2.101 defines "option" as a "unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Government may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract, or may elect to extend the term of the contract." As such, I'd revise the terms used to produce the following: Option to Extend the Period of Performance (Jul 2019) (a) The Government may extend the period of performance of this contract through the exercise of options under this clause, if two conditions are met: 1) The Government gives to the Contractor notice that the option has been exercised at least 5 days before the contract expires, and 2) The Government gives to the Contractor preliminary written notice its intent to exercise the option at least 60 days before the contract expires. (b) If the conditions in (a) are not met, the term of the contract may be be extended to the next option only through a bilateral contract modification (supplemental agreement). (c) The total period of performance of this contract, including all extensions, shall not exceed 60 months. If you agree with this, here's my next question. When bilaterally signing due to untimely notices, does one cite 52.217-9 in Block 13D?
  11. The Contract Specialist awarded a firm-fixed price BPA, which consist of a base and four 12-month option periods. The BPA was put in place to allow the Agency to place individual call orders for toner and toner supplies needed throughout the Agency. Under the previous BPA, the program office would obligate funds and purchase toner by drawing down against the funds obligated versus placing individual call orders. This drawing down allowed for a quicker delivery of toner for the program office. When the BPA was renewed (thru Ability One Program), the former CO informed the program office that they could no longer obligate funds and draw down against the funds, but instead place individual call orders on an as-needed-basis. The program office has been following this process; however, due to delays from processing the request to receiving the toner, the Branch Chief (CO) recommended that the Contract Specialist change the contract type from FFP to T&M. The Branch Chief CO's rationale for changing the contract type to T&M - it would expedite the toner process. How is this even possible for a commercial product??? I don't understand the Branch Chief COs rationale. Can someone provide an explanation? I would greatly appreciate it.
  12. Yeah, this clause, which I've used at least a hundred times, sucks, now that I am reading it carefully. Here is better....you listening FAR Council? Option to Extend the Period of Performance (Jul 2019) (a) The Government may extend the period of performance of this contract through the unilateral exercise of options under this clause, if two conditions are met: 1) The Government gives to the Contractor notice that the option has been exercised at least 5 days before the contract expires, and 2) The Government gives to the Contractor preliminary written notice its intent at least 60 days before the contract expires. (b) If these two conditions are not met, the option may be exercised only through a bilateral contract modification (supplemental agreement). (c) The total period of performance of this contract, including all extensions, shall not exceed 60 months.
  13. I agree with Neil and Joel. The clause is so poorly worded that it might not be enforceable because there was no meeting of the minds over what it meant.
  14. As a contractor, I can confirm that there are a LOT of "dirtbags" in the construction business. A lot of inexperienced, wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am types. The tough part is being good and charging appropriately when competing with these types. I service a couple national chains locally and the president of one told me once that I had two reputations with them. I was expensive and I was good. My approach to government work has really been that I bid the price I am comfortable with. If I get the job, great... it is worth my time. I'll travel anywhere for the right price.
  15. Paragraph (a), first sentence is poorly written and ambiguous, upon initial read. “Within 5 days” of what? The Cambridge Diction defines the preposition “within” as: “inside or not beyond (a particular area, limit, or period of time)”. so from 0-5 days from (?) is within five days of the completion period? Within five days of the start of the option period? Or is five days supposed to be the minimum notice period before ( ?): “at least five days before...” Should it say: “The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor at least 5 days before [?], provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 60 days before the contract expires.
  16. 1) Probably not. I know that in practice, in the civilian agencies I am familiar with, the CO rarely sends out these preliminary notices. A Contract Specialist or Admin usually sends the notice on behalf of the CO. These folks might have some delegated CO authority or something though. But it is 'intent'- its not binding. 2) No, I don't think so. I interpret that sentence as meaning 5 days is the minimum period between receipt of the option exercise and when the contractor is responsible for work (under the extended term). I consider the 'within 5 days' statement a way of preventing this: The CO sends an option exercise at 11:58 PM the day the contract expires, and expects the contractors to show up at 8 AM the next day. Could be wrong though. 3) I think the intent of this sentence is to (indirectly) confirm that the clause can be used repeatedly to extend the term (up to the limit of para c). The alternative would be an interpretation of the clause where the term can be extended only one time.
  17. Agreed we don't know if there is equivalent language. But absent that, the labor portion of a T&M contract is FFP and thus immune to the audit information requested. The only exceptions might be for post-award defective pricing audits or an allegation of fraud. With respect to defective pricing audits, I think the information requested would have been different (e.g., would not have included a reconcilation of indirect costs bid to the books). It's easy to develop edge cases that fall outside Pareto parameters. I was speaking to the general use cases. This is the Beginner's Forum, after all.
  18. I didn’t intend to express my original response to Pepe’s general degradation of all Civil service employees in detail. My assertion about getting what you pay for was aimed at IFB and LPTA for construction, where there is no economic incentive to do more than the bare minimum required. The minimum includes performance of the awarded contract as well as meeting award criteria. Such award criteria includes such as acceptable past performance record or whatever the minimum criteria for past performance record is (e.g., “no record - unknown confidence level”). Such performance of the contract would include meeting minimum performance or prescriptive requirements to get paid, not be terminated and receive at least the minimum performance evaluation rating necessary to avoid being determined unacceptable for future awards of IFB or LPTA. Very low bar. The pre-award assessment would be part of the technical evaluation and/or responsibility determination. Unlike Pepe, I’m not characterizing all of industry firms. Firms which wish to compete for contracts awarded using comparative evaluation criteria will generally desire to exceed the bare minimum performance level, where possible, especially concerning customer satisfaction. Working with them was generally enjoyable. Many other firms that don’t compete for best value awards will also strive to provide customer satisfaction . But dirt bags can obtain awards that use LPTA and low bid award criteria. Been around long enough to experience having to deal with some dirt bag construction and installation level service contractors before best value, trade off RFP’s were available. There were also some very hard to get along with contractors, who weren’t dirt bags but whose attitude made life miserable. I used to dread post award/pre-construction conferences with the percentage of miserable and/or dirt bag contractors. Oh, I spent 9 years working for others prior to my time as a “snivel service” employee - plus eight summers prior to college graduation working for others. I don’t ever remember doing the bare minimum to get by. After govt retirement, I’m still working same way - but for free. I resent somebody making a general negative performance characterization of all civil service employees. While a “GS”, I knew who I was working for/serving - the American citizens - and who was paying the cost of my employment - the American taxpayers.
  19. We’ve been getting a lot of the dreaded “Excessive Heat Warnings” this week. If you’re in the same boat, please stay cool out there. An alternative to going outside could be staying in the air conditioning and reading up on some interesting government contracting news. This week in federal government contracting news, please check out noteworthy updates on cyber provisions in the NDAA, securing the supply chain, and possible changes to Buy-American rules for steel, as well as many other stories. FBI Arrests Former Top Puerto Rico Officials In Government Corruption Scandal [NPR] House passes NDAA, keeps HASC chairman Smith’s space launch reforms alive [Spacenews] Katrina-inspired New Orleans business, hundreds of others land contracts in $2.8B federal program [Nola.com] FAR amendment speeds up agency acquisitions [fedscoop] Securing the Supply Chain to Meet the New DoD Cyber Regulations [ClearanceJobs] House-Passed NDAA Includes Key Cyber Provisions [Signal] Ex-Ventura County Naval Base Worker Sentenced to More Than 5 Years for $1.2 Million in Kickbacks [KTLA] Trump Seeks Further Buy-American Boost for Steel [ENR] Army Futures Command needs to better manage small business outreach, GAO says [fedscoop] For DOD cloud vendors, a FedRAMP Moderate rating will soon be enough [fedscoop] Connolly, Meadows to introduce bill to serve as ‘statutory anchor’ for FedRAMP [Federal News Network] View the full article
  20. If I may, I would like to piggyback on this topic. Specifically this sentence portion. To those knowledgable professionals that do post a response, could you please tell me what "within 5 days" means to you? Within 5 days of what? Personally I would not accept such a contract clause as written. I don't understand this portion of it and I consider it critical to understand. Since this is FAR clause that has been around a long time, I am going to assume I don't know what it means out of my lack of experience with this clause. Thanks.
  21. 1. Yes. See FAR 1.602. There could be others I guess above the CO like Head of Agency but no lower than CO unless the CO delegated that person such authority which would be very unusual. 2. Yes by my read as long as the 60 days was met. No reference so others might substantiate a different view but for me the wording suggests the minimum or in other words not something less than five days. 3. Verification to ensure understanding. No doubt there is some case law behind the wording since it is straight from the FAR.
  22. Assume one has a service contract with this clause incorporated: Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000) (a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 5 days provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 60 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension. (b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause. (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 60 months. (End of clause) 1) Does the person providing preliminary notice have to be the CO? 2) If the Government exercises the option via written notice "early", say 10 days prior to contract expiration, is said option exercise invalid?? 3) Why was paragraph b necessary in this clause? If a contract is extended, aren't existing terms and conditions in the conformed contract incorporated by default?
  23. H2H, this may be premature. We do not know whether this is a subcontractor or prime contractor, who this request is coming from and what equivalent language may have been included in the contract in place of 52.215-2, if any.
  24. I like "lifer" especially as my g experience gets ever closer to my p experience...yep I have been on both sides. "Protest" thanks Frog, like warts some things do wear off on to others. For the record my personal experience was not low bid. In some cases you do not get what you pay for. Not prevalent but all the same well informed expectations do not always equal expected results for whatever reason like, Oh I forgot to mention the employee in training! No it is about if it was behavior or no. As posted it was whether it was behavior or a technical reason as well? And, there very well could be and advice was provided as to either or. I'll bite from the view of is it capability or capacity, and not of the individual but of the system to support the individual? I will leave it at that as the whole of the WIFCON Forum is filled with discussions either specifically or get there sooner or later. I appreciate all the comments.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...