joel hoffman

First - Does the contract allow selective exercise of CLINS in an option? Are they severable (e.g., do not bear a share of spread fixed or one time costs)?

@YoungOne If it is required under the licensing laws where the designer of record is licensed, then I’d say have the DOR concur and re-stamp the edited plans or specs. I was a licensed professional engineer in two states and this would be consistent with those state practices and professional engineering associations’ professional and ethical standard practices. What you are apparently advocating is to revise stamped design documents without coordinating with the Designer(s) of Record. Bad Practice.

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.

Deleted. Accidental post.

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”. 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."

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”.

You can adjust the CLIN ceiling from the previous Out Year. You can increase the CLIN ceiling for the current out year due to expected overrun…

Some examples of threads that concern “Contract Administration” and not “Contracting Workforce” issues: CPFF Unfunded Est Cost CLIN REA for Customs Fees Increase Do we include holiday hours when calculating the OT Rate for subcontractors?

I thought this discussion area is for topics related to the Contracting Workforce occupational area. There seem to be numerous threads that deal with contracting issues, not contracting occupational issues. Would it be possible for Admin to move the threads that are unrelated to this discussion area to the appropriate areas? Just sayin’. It’s a pet peeve that goes way back to my days with the DOD “Ask a Professor” website. Thanks, if you can move threads.

It looks like only $800 was funded for some effort to be performed during the first option year. Appears that CLIN is now complete and not applicable to the second option year. Second option year includes a CPFF CLIN to perform estimated $1000 of effort. You say that the cost for that CLIN will likely exceed the $1000 estimate. Ok, so you can increase the CLIN, can’t you? What does that have to do with “$200” from a previous year CLIN??

Do the contract specialists or KO’s involved in the source selection know what the solicitation says, what the technical requirements are and what the evaluation factors and criteria mean?

I’m glad they are finally intending to audit 8(a) contractor entities. Back in 1989-1997, I was the head of a District office in the Army Corps of Engineers which negotiated all sole source SDB and competitively negotiated construction and some service contract for our Engineer District. It was not uncommon for the SBA nominated sole source SDB contractors to be a front for a non-minority subcontractor. We could usually see through that type of arrangement during proposal evaluations and would reject the offered contractor before or during the negotiation process. We worked with the SBA to replace those proposed SDB’s while I was there.

No, you didn’t upset me by that statement. I’m not upset or agitated at all. I was simply responding to your question asking what leads me to “the conclusion that the requirement is being eliminated?” There was no such conclusion. I was asking @Air Force One “if the out year requirements were being eliminated” . If so, I indicated that the government could (should?) inform the contractor earlier that the out-year options can’t be exercised… I later agreed with formerfed that another possibility could be that the out year requirements may be differently defined than in the current options. Either scenario could prevent the KO from exercising the out-year options. You are right that even if @Air Force One responds we won’t know. AFO has enough info to consider alternatives to satisfy DOGE.

A good way to frame the possible scenario- maybe the out year requirements may be differently defined than in the current options. We don’t know…

NO. If you know anytime beforehand that one or more of the conditions in FAR 17.02 (c) can’t be met for exercising the third and fourth year options, the KO can decide not to and can inform the contractor earlier than the window for notifying the contractor of the intent to exercise the option.

Yes, Vern. That’s why I asked @Air Force One for clarifications. I haven’t concluded anything. I’m asking if the out years requirements are being eliminated. From FAR 17.02 (as of FAC Number: 2025-04 Effective Date: 06/11/2025) “…(c): “The contracting officer may exercise options only after determining that- (1)Funds are available; [and]* (2)The requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing Government need; [and] (3)The exercise of the option is [still] the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government’s need, price and other factors (see paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section) considered; [and… ]. “ *[ ] Added for emphasis These are ALL required (not alternatively required) before the KO can exercise an out year option. We don’t know.

I agree, @formerfed

@Air Force One What exactly do you mean by “the agency’s clearance threshold”? Also, couldn’t you determine if this is a requirement internally within the agency? Could you please also respond my Friday questions? It would help clarify the situation… thanks.

Air Force One, what is the basis for the DOGE cuts? Is the requirement for the service being eliminated? Are any of the conditions in 17.207 (c) such that exercising out year option are not warranted, e.g., those requirements are to be eliminated?

The KO can’t exercise the options if the conditions in 17.207 (c) can’t be met. Since the right to exercise an option is unilateral, I see no additional “authority” required to tell the contractor that the government can’t exercise out year options, then unilaterally delete them to satisfy the DOGE. The government agency isn’t “punishing” or unfairly treating the contractor. The contractor can plan for other business opportunities earlier. That is a benefit to the contractor.

Many years ago, one of my early bosses, a Resident Engineer in construction contracting told me that there were more opportunities for advancement in working in field offices versus in the District Office . But it would require relocations, which could be essentially disruptive and involve frequent moving expenses and new mortgages, etc. But the District staff was relatively stable, not having to start over with new mortgages, etc. indeed many of them had vacation homes or second homes on the Bay or condos on the Gulf with paid off mortgages. Our contracting office leadership included seasoned KO’s who held their positions for many years and were able to advance when someone retired. But their mortgages were paid off and they had second homes… same with engineers in the District and Division Offices. Indeed, the initial reason I came to work for the government as a civil service employee at age 31 with my wife and two young children was for the improved benefits, relatively secure job retention vs. working in the volatile private engineering career field and to be able to plan for a decent retirement (albeit it was the CSRS system). I was able to advance from GS-11 through the ranks to GS-14 reasonably soon and could have advanced higher. But I didn’t like the duties of most of the GS-15’s in the District and Division Offices (not fun and less interesting). I had to move a lot during my career, which I didn’t necessarily like. But the job opportunities and varied experiences were great. So, there were advantages and disadvantages to moving around with advancements and staying in the central offices with less promotional opportunities but greater stability and financial stability

Since it is a unilateral right of the government to exercise or not to exercise an option, why does it have to be a supplemental agreement? Is there a limit stated in the contract on how early the government can make such a decision? What would be the basis for a claim? Such an action may likely benefit a contractor for future planning purposes.

Why do we [HAVE TO] “award contracts to contractors who demonstrate a superior ability to perform” ?? I searched Google for the current fiscal deficit and found this - through May 2025… “The current fiscal year (2025) has seen a federal deficit of $1.36 trillion, as of the latest data, meaning the government has spent $1.36 trillion more than it has collected in revenue, according to the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. This deficit has increased by $162 billion compared to the same period last year (October 2023 - May 2024), according to the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. “ Definition of Superior from Meriam Webster: “one that surpasses another in quality or merit…” From Collins: “Definition of 'quality'quality uncountable noun B1 The quality of something is how good or bad it is. [...]” “Definition of 'superior'superior adjective If one thing or person is superior to another, the first is better than the second. [...]” Why would we have to pay for more quality performance than necessary to meet the mission or contract requirements, if it can be purchased from someone who can meet our requirements at a lower price ? This doesn’t seem to be totally consistent with the proposed language in FAR 1.102 (a) (2): “(2)Ensure the most effective use of taxpayer dollars in ways that recognize the value of time, encourage innovation, promote merit, satisfy the customer, and balance these interests and objectives;” Or perhaps, (2) encourages best value with more stress than economy of purchases.

@KevinC What do you mean by “new start requirement”?

Then again, I’m antiquated, too. 🥸