Posted August 30, 20231 yr comment_79459 In construction, when delays are caused without contractor fault I found utilize 52.249-10 Default (Fixed-Price Construction) as it reads: The Contractor, within 10 days from the beginning of any delay (unless extended by the Contracting Officer), notifies the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay. If, in the judgment of the Contracting Officer, the findings of fact warrant such action, the time for completing the work shall be extended. However, in non-commercial services the clause is instead 52.249-8. I see this clause used for extensions to A&E contracts, but there is no similar language in this clause that stands out to me as an authority to modify the contract. The closest thing would be 52.249-8(c) but it feels like quite a stretch. What are your thoughts and how do you justify this on your authority matrix?
August 30, 20231 yr comment_79461 There are several appeals board and court cases dealing with the impact an excusable delay has on the contract schedule. I suggest you do some research of those cases using the search term "excusable delay."
August 30, 20231 yr comment_79463 5 hours ago, Thurley4397 said: What are your thoughts and how do you justify this on your authority matrix? What is an authority matrix?
August 31, 20231 yr comment_79472 The "authority" for each would be the FAR regulation that is called out in the "prescription" for each, i.e., "As prescribed in 49.504(c)(1), insert the following clause:" If you are looking for rationale for the language in each clause, you can research that in the Federal Register history for each clause.
August 31, 20231 yr comment_79473 @Neil Roberts, What do you mean by "authority"? Do you think that a contracting officer wouldn't have the authority to extend a contract when the contractor experienced an excusable delay if the contract didn't contain the Default clause?
September 1, 20231 yr comment_79477 Agree with Don’s implication. If the delay for services or supplies is excusable, the government can extend the completion period, if possible for the circumstances. The difference between the clauses may be that there are construction schedules and usually liquidated damages involved in construction contracts. This requires timely, affirmative actions by both parties to determine and adjust the construction schedules and completion date(s) due to excusable delays. In addition, the scope of construction work is fixed and must be completed. Not extending the completion date for an excusable delay may likely be a constructive acceleration with associated impact costs. For service contracts, It might not be possible to provide or perform all of the remaining services or extend the performance period to perform the remaining services.
September 1, 20231 yr comment_79478 18 hours ago, Don Mansfield said: What do you mean by "authority"? Do you think that a contracting officer wouldn't have the authority to extend a contract when the contractor experienced an excusable delay if the contract didn't contain the Default clause? Hi Don. What I meant by "authority" was that a clause is included in a contract when a FAR prescription says to include it. I can't properly answer your question because I haven't thought about it, nothing offhand comes to mind, and do not have the time right now.
September 2, 20231 yr comment_79497 There has been a question asked of the original poster. Rule 17 is in effect. Quote 17. Original posters must not disappear after they post a question. Disappearing makes it impossible to provide clarifications of the original post so that others may respond intelligently. It is normal for the original poster to be asked for clarification. The Orginal Poster has 5 calendar days after the original post to answer any questions. After that, the Topic will be locked.
