As I was coming up as an 1102 it was a common teaching ("unwritten" rule) that the costs associated with executing a modification (SF30) was approximately $500.  That was a long time ago (90's). I'm sure that figure has increased.  

Question- does anyone know what is being taught in the 1102 circles the "unwritten" or written rule for the cost associated with executing a modification (SF30)?

12 hours ago, S. Nimrod said:

Question- does anyone know what is being taught in the 1102 circles the "unwritten" or written rule for the cost associated with executing a modification (SF30)?

Please explain what act or actions you are specifically referring to when you say “executing” a modification [on an] SF 30. 

Thank you. 

Perhaps it originated from FAR 14.201-8: (c) Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.

@S. Nimrod, I’m still curious about what what you specifically mean by the term “executing a modification”. It’s an ambiguous term, without further clarification.

How do you expect an answer if you don’t define what you are asking about? 

Thanks.

 

2 hours ago, Vel said:

Perhaps it originated from FAR 14.201-8: (c) Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.

The question concerning a “rule” for assuming an estimated cost to “execut[e] a modification” may have originated from the above, totally ridiculous, 1990 estimate of administrative cost to the government to both issue and administer each contract.

However, those are separate scenarios, no matter what “executing a modification” refers to. “Issuing and administering each contract [of more than some nominal amount] awarded under a solicitation” generally entails much more direct and indirect labor costs and efforts alone let alone other direct and indirect costs than “executing” each modification under that contract.

As such, it is an “Apples to Oranges” comparison with little correlation.

On 1/25/2024 at 5:50 AM, Vel said:

Perhaps it originated from FAR 14.201-8: (c) Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.

Vel, thank you for the response. You understood the intent of my question. I acknowledge just because I was taught that "unwritten" rule doesn't necessarily mean that it was right. I've seen some in the simplified acquisition world consider that estimated cost when drafting award decisions and even price reasonableness. Thanks everyone else for your consideration. Oh, doesn't execute a mod typically mean an agreed upon change and if it's on an SF30 means all authorized parties (KO/CO, KTR) signed it as necessary? I'm just wondering where the misunderstanding could be in using the term "execute a modification". It should be common language in the procurement and contracting world in this day and age.

On 1/25/2024 at 5:50 AM, Vel said:

Perhaps it originated from FAR 14.201-8: (c) Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.

On 1/24/2024 at 7:07 PM, joel hoffman said:

Please explain what act or actions you are specifically referring to when you say “executing” a modification [on an] SF 30. 

Thank you. 

5 hours ago, S. Nimrod said:

I'm just wondering where the misunderstanding could be in using the term "execute a modification". It should be common language in the procurement and contracting world in this day and age.

Well I am just catching up on this thread in total. I think you missed a golden opportunity S. Nimrod as your response to Joel could have been -

FAR 43.102 (Emphasis added) - "(a) Only contracting officers acting within the scope of their authority are empowered to execute contract modifications on behalf of the Government. Other Government personnel shall not-

(1) Execute contract modifications;

(2) Act in such a manner as to cause the contractor to believe that they have authority to bind the Government; or

(3) Direct or encourage the contractor to perform work that should be the subject of a contract modification.

(b) Contract modifications, including changes that could be issued unilaterally, shall be priced before their execution if this can be done without adversely affecting the interest of the Government. If a significant cost increase could result from a contract modification and time does not permit negotiation of a price, at least a ceiling price shall be negotiated unless impractical."

Parent topic: Subpart 43.1 - General

Carl, that post of mine was over a year ago. I think my posts probably related to defining what actions encompass “executing a modification”. Does it include, for instance all activities involved in issuing a modification, such as:

• issuing a request for proposal, when applicable,

• developing a government estimate when required,

• evaluating the proposal,

• developing the negotiation objective,

• negotiating and settling the time and cost aspects,

• writing up the record of negotiations,

• legal, asdministratrive and other reviews, if any,

• preparing the SF-30 (or other mod paperwork or electronic files),

• the KO or ACO “executing” (signing) the mod”

• sending the mod to the contractor,

• receiving it back,

• etc. ?

The act of “executing” the modification ( as in a KO or ACO act of signing the mod) in 43.102 is essentially one step in the overall modification process.

If this refers to all actions involved in the mod process, then according to 43.102 (a), only the KO can perform those actions; no other government personnel can “execute” modifications.

That’s probably why I asked the initial poster to define what they meant by “executing a modification”.

3 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Carl, this was over a year ago.

Sort of Joel. The most recent post besides ours was just 21 hours ago which then had me go back and read the entire thread of a year ago and respond. Thanks for your comments. The point of my post was to get Nimrod back to basics in reading the FAR and its many supplements with regard to the question and your response. The FAR does use "execute" and in the context Nimrod inquires about. By example is the following quote from the DLAD (Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive) at its part 43 .....

"43.102 (b)(S-90) Administrative cost. The administrative cost for contract modifications issued by DLA Aviation, DLA Contracting Services Office, DLA Disposition Services, DLA Distribution, DLA Energy, DLA Land and Maritime, DLA Strategic Materials, and DLA Troop Support Industrial Hardware is $250. The administrative cost for contract modifications issued by DLA Troop Support Construction and Equipment, Clothing and Textile, Subsistence, and Medical is $750. These fees are in addition to consideration cost (see 43.102(b)(S-91)); and costs for Government reinspection or retest, if necessary...."

My bet is something like the DLAD is what has seeped into the 1102 circles that Nimrod wonders about.

7 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

If this refers to all actions involved in the mod process, then according to 43.102 (a), only the KO can perform those actions; no other government personnel can “execute” modifications.

43.102 (a) doesn't make any sense to me if “execute” refers to the whole modification process. The KO or ACO would be personally required to perform all the administrative tasks associated with “executing a modification”.

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

The FAR does use "execute" and in the context Nimrod inquires about. By example is the following quote from the DLAD (Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive) at its part 43 .....

Carl,

The DLAD at 43.102(b) simply refers to “[the] administrative cost for contract modifications…” It doesn’t refer to the term “execute” or to 43.102(a) in any context.

In fact, FAR 43.102 (b) doesn’t refer to administrative costs to be considered in the price of a modification’s . The DLAD at (S-91) might, I don’t know.

Edit: The FAR at 43.102 (b) concerns “pricing the modification”, not the administrative costs to issue a modification or “cost of executing a modification”.

“(b) Contract modifications, including changes that could be issued unilaterally, shall be priced before their execution if this can be done without adversely affecting the interest of the Government. If a significant cost increase could result from a contract modification and time does not permit negotiation of a price, at least a ceiling price shall be negotiated unless impractical."

Edited July 31Jul 31 by joel hoffman

Carl, Government agencies issue modifications , including all necessary actions and related costs. This is often a collective effort of more than one individual.

Only KO’s have the authority to and do execute modifications to make them effective.

I think the "unwritten or written rules” are for the cost associated with issuing a modification (SF30) - not just executing a modification.

Perhaps it’s semantics. That’s why I asked @S. Nimrod to define what he or she meant by “execute a modification”.

Edit:

I’m sorry if I offended you here or in past threads, S. Nimrod, by asking questions. I was not deliberately trying to be condescending then or now.

I don’t expect you to have to answer my questions.

The stated premise of your initial post were written or unwritten rules concerning “the cost of executing a modification” .

However, I think what you referred to as the cost of “executing a modification” really is the administrative cost of “issuing a modification” or the administrative cost “to modify a contract”.

I don’t see the interchangeability between the two terms/phrases in the FAR. They are separate concepts.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by joel hoffman