41 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

This still gives the contracting officer discretion as to what would be appropirate under the circumstances.

Doesn't the contractor have a say in this matter?  After all, both parties have to agree.

If the MATOC’s are pre-priced, discretionary revisions to clauses might or might not affect the Multiple award contract holders’ costs, leading to pricing issues. What a Pandora’s Box that could introduce! 

Knowing the government, most of those revisions may likely be additional requirements, not relief. 

18 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

This still gives the contracting officer discretion as to what would be appropirate under the circumstances.

Wait.....appropriate for what?   Including the changes in the contract or for consideration.  As ji notes placing the changes in the contract has to be by mutual agreement, bilateral modification in FAR language, where both parties agree on the changes to the contract or the modification just does not happen.  As such a bilateral modification of the terms of the contract accompanies consideration.  Both parties are making a promise and obligated to fulfill that promise. Therefore the consideration can not be "none".

17 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

If the MATOC’s are pre-priced, discretionary revisions to clauses might or might not affect the Multiple award contract holders’ costs, leading to pricing issues. What a Pandora’s Box that could introduce! 

Knowing the government, most of those revisions may likely be additional requirements, not relief. 

Probably too old school but I have always felt that any change even the dang blasted "administrative" changes folks like to push on a contractor cost money.

Changing the CO or COR - administrative change.   Wait you mean one CO or COR is just like the other in their administrative demands under the contract?

Changing funding -administrative change.   Wait you mean one fund is just like another when it comes to availability, appropriation bill approval, or at the worst sequestration?

As such I agree with your view Joel and would go a step further that even if the changes provided relief, say like reduced environmental constraints, there is something I am going to have to do business wise to fulfill the changed promise I made to perform.

17 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Probably too old school but I have always felt that any change even the dang blasted "administrative" changes folks like to push on a contractor cost money.

Changing the CO or COR - administrative change.   Wait you mean one CO or COR is just like the other in their administrative demands under the contract?

Changing funding -administrative change.   Wait you mean one fund is just like another when it comes to availability, appropriation bill approval, or at the worst sequestration?

As such I agree with your view Joel and would go a step further that even if the changes provided relief, say like reduced environmental constraints, there is something I am going to have to do business wise to fulfill the changed promise I made to perform.

If the line items are open to pricing per order (not just discounts off of a not to exceed contract unit price) AND if all pool members would theoretically be similarly affected by the changes, they can price orders to reflect the changed terms and conditions in a competitive environment.

Discretionary changes in clauses still require bilateral agreement, though - from all 49 contract holders. Ayyy-yiii. 

However, if line items are pre-priced, they usually can’t offer a higher unit price in an order, only the contract unit price or a discounted unit price. Then, we have a real problem and the government shouldn’t even try to make discretionary changes to clauses.

Edited December 21, 20196 yr by joel hoffman

Thus, the OP should explain the impracticality of the directive to their boss. 

I think that discretionary changes that affect 49 contract holders or some but not all of them should be considered out of scope 

On 12/20/2019 at 3:47 PM, ji20874 said:

Doesn't the contractor have a say in this matter? 

As I indicated earlier, both parties have a say in what the consideration will be.  However, the FAR only mentions the contracting officer.

 

8 hours ago, C Culham said:

Both parties are making a promise and obligated to fulfill that promise.

I agree.  A promise for a promise is all that is required.  No change in the contract price, extended warranty, extra performance or things of that nature would be required in every circumstance.

I mentioned before GSA does bilateral modifications to contracts that add, delete, and change things including clauses.  There’s no additional consideration involved (except a contractor won't have a contract very long if they don’t accept.  A joke of mine).  The modification process is announced in the solicitation so all offerors/contractors are aware and agreed to upon award.  Then the argument about out of scope is dismissed.  

https://interact.gsa.gov/document/upcoming-refreshmass-mod-all-gsa-schedules-incorporate-clause-and-provision-updates-2

It seems that Charlotte's situation does not involve schedule contracts.

True.  But they are multiple award IDIQ type contracts.  I just bought that up as an example of an agency doing periodic contract refreshments and updates.

Charlotte hasn’t logged in since asking her question. Perhaps she gleaned sufficient advice from responses. However, it would be nice to know answers to my questions about how the 49 contracts are priced.

7 hours ago, formerfed said:

True.  But they are multiple award IDIQ type contracts.  I just bought that up as an example of an agency doing periodic contract refreshments and updates.

Yep, if Charlotte’s supervisor thinks that these type contracts should be refreshed and updated, then the agency should state that in the original MATOC solicitation.