So I have a modification that I'm doing, but the changes clause that I'm using wasn't in the original contract. I'm adding that clause to the contract through a modification. My question is, must I do a modification by itself to add that actual clause, then do another modification utilizing that clause, or can I add that clause and use it all in one mod? I hope I didn't confuse anyone. Basically, do I need to do 2 separate modifications? 

Hmm. Do you think that you can't modify the contract unless it contains the Changes clause?

 

There is no standard that I am aware of.  Do it as you wish.

On 3/19/2022 at 2:52 PM, PATRICK3 said:

the changes clause that I'm using wasn't in the original contract.

Is it a part of the contract by operation of the Christian Doctrine?

On 3/19/2022 at 11:52 AM, PATRICK3 said:

So I have a modification that I'm doing, but the changes clause that I'm using wasn't in the original contract. I'm adding that clause to the contract through a modification. My question is, must I do a modification by itself to add that actual clause, then do another modification utilizing that clause, or can I add that clause and use it all in one mod?

So you want to (1) add the changes clause, then (2) issue a change order under the clause, and then (3) make an equitable adjustment for the change in a subsequent mod at a later date.

Is that right?

Doesn't have to be that one. Just in general, must you have to do a mod first, in order to use that clause. Period

14 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

 

Is that right?

This thread is rolling along in two topics.   The OP may have answered your question in the Contract Administration topic area.

I just realized that, but he hasn't responded to me.

@PATRICK3

So you want to (1) add the changes clause, then (2) issue a change order under the clause, and then (3) make an equitable adjustment for the change in a subsequent mod at a later date. And you want to know if you can do (1) and (2) in the same mod.

Is that right?

Yes @Vern Edwards, Exactly that! Thank you

@PATRICK3If I were your CO I would allow you to write one modification that both adds the clause and issues the change order. You have to write it carefully. You (1) add the clause and then (2) issue the change, both via one supplemental agreement, and state that an equitable adjustment, if required, will be made by subsequent agreement.

Now some COs might object, stating that adding the clause must be done bilaterally and issuing the change order must be done unilaterally and that those must be done under separate modifications. I don't think that's necessary, but different COs do some things differently.

If you can, (1) add the clause, (2) issue the order, and (3) make the equitable adjustment all in one mod.

I don't know what type of contract you have, but, arguably, you could assert that the changes clause is in the contract by operation of law (Christian Doctrine) and that you don't need to add it by modification. But it might just be easier to add it by mod.

Finally, you don't really need the changes clause if the contractor agrees to the change. But if you think you might make other changes the clause might be needed.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Finally, you don't really need the changes clause if the contractor agrees to the change.

Right on!  This is a correct principle that is not well understood in our community.  I don't need the changes clause for a bilateral modification -- I only need it for a unilateral change order.

This is great @Vern Edwards! Thanks a lot for the information!!!

One last thing though @Vern Edwards or @ji20874, if you don't need the Changes Clause or any clause to do a modification, then you simply leave this box blank which states... "THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:"?

Thanks again for the feedback

Patrick, Your question has been hashed and re-hashed many times in WIFCON, and there is no consensus answer.

But let me ask you: Is an entry in the box necessary? If the box were left blank, would the modification be defective in any way?

8 hours ago, PATRICK3 said:

if you don't need the Changes Clause or any clause to do a modification, then you simply leave this box blank which states... "THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:"?

😁

@PATRICK3 You have hit upon one of the longest-standing issues in government contract administration—What do you insert in Standard Form 30, block 13c, when you change the contract by mutual agreement? Contract specialists and file reviewers have argued about that since I was a GS-05 novice. I have never heard or given an answer that everyone agreed upon.

Can you enter "mutual agreement of the parties" or do you have to cite some statute, regulation, or contract clause?

I like "mutual agreement", but I have known plenty of competent people who would say that's dead wrong. They would want to cite some statute or regulation. I know people who would cite the U.S. Constitution. I've seen "United States Code" without reference to a specific section; "48 CFR"; and "FAR Part 43". I'd go along with ji20874's idea  of leaving it blank, but I know that many, perhaps a majority, would object to that. The block's there—gotta be filled, right?

Great trivia question at the club over beers.

@PATRICK3   Consider for the future a search within WIFCON when you have a thought or question.   Could save you some time and provide valuable reference.

 

 

Funny reading that 10 years later.

I merged the 2 topics of the same name and deleted the first post of the "author."  It appears that the merge routine was successful.

Thanks again @Vern Edwards and everyone else! Valuable information and I'll definitely do that next time.