joel hoffman

8 hours ago, formerfed said:

One way to look at this is anything DOGE cuts is because the requirement, at least the way it’s currently defined or exist, is eliminated.

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…

On 7/9/2025 at 6:11 AM, joel hoffman said:

Is there a limit stated in the contract on how early the government can make such a decision?

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.

13 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Let's see if Air Force One clears things up

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.

13 hours ago, formerfed said:

This is exactly the issue - it sounds like the requirement is being eliminated. Air Force 1, if this is true, get the requiring activity to tell you that in writing. Then call the contractor and explain that as well as notifying them options will be not exercised. Be sure your senior management is aware of everything you plan to do.

That’s it.

I agree, @formerfed

On 7/10/2025 at 12:34 PM, Air Force One said:

Thanks for the commentary on this topic. Here's another one to ponder. Regardless of the Contracting Officer's decision to issue a unilateral or bi-lateral modification to remove options three and four...does the modification (contract action) require clearance if the total reduced value of the contract exceeds the agency's clearance threshold?

@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.

16 hours ago, C Culham said:

I can buy into the thought, but as usual my mind starts to go haywire. 4X8 piece of plywood from lumber vendor but I ask for it to be cut into 2X4 before I leave the store, or for that matter the same with a bundle of 4X8's please cut into 2X4 before delivering. I am not trying to make it difficult, just saying I think like anything in acquisition "it depends" and the specific need will dictate for any commercial product (or service?) as to whether it fits the subset of COTS or not!

Asking for the lumber yard to cut the plywood isn’t a customer required modification to cots materials in my opinion, because they generally have standard additional charges for that, if they indeed do cuts. At least around here.

I think the key, as suggested above is whether you are buying a product (or service) in the form that it is available to and sold to the general public.

Can one buy the same item “off the shelf” , in the general sense, being a product available in the commercial marketplace, which can be bought and used under a government contract?

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.

On 5/21/2025 at 11:48 AM, KevinC said:

In the FAR what are the policies and definitions regarding a new start requirement

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

Then again, I’m antiquated, too. 🥸

Carl, I don’t disagree with you. For service contracts at least, what need is there to retain old files edit: or retain files longer than six years?

And yes, the six year statute of limitations for filing claims is relevant.

However, I’d say that, over the years, I sometimes needed more information than what the as-built drawings contained for construction contracts. Especially if something wore out or failed or if it failed within extended warranty periods. Shop drawings and approval comments were often helpful. Even the daily QC and QA reports sometimes were relevant to investigations to determine what might have happened. This was regardless of whether or not someone was responsible contractually. We may just have needed to source repairs or replacements.

I can also see the need to be able to electronically retain information for some supply contracts for issues or repairs down the road. Knowing the dates and sources of purchases for instance.

Edit: To clarify, my comments are simply related to be able to retain electronic files of construction (or some supply) contract beyond six years.

As Carl noted why retain old service contract files beyond the statute of limitations for submitting a claim?

No longer necessary to keep file cabinets and physical files, which was probably a major reason for requiring destruction of old files after six years. Cost and space

I remember spending hours in warehouses sifting through shelves and boxes to review contract info.

I think that the six year limit is antiquated, based upon paper file retention methods that required space and resources for box or file cabinet storage.

I found it occasionally necessary to review old contract files. Once, I had to review files of the Army Corps of Engineers construction contracts in Saudi Arabia to support determination of failure responsibility and/or enforcement of roof warranties for thousands of failed roofs.

I discovered that the Saudis had fully preserved all of our old paper contract files in libraries at the various major project sites.

When I was in the Air Force fifty years ago, fortunately the Base Civil Engineer Squadron had saved all the technical contract files from the original Air Base Construction 15 years earlier.. Every time that SAC made Operational Readiness Inspections, we had to hide the filing cabinets or files above the ceiling at CE. 🤪

Thank God for the ability to electronically store contract files now days.

10 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

If the contract includes FAR 52.229-3, Federal, State, and Local Taxes, then the contractor could be compensated for an after-imposed federal tax. This includes duties (a tariff is a type of duty).

I’d be careful about equating “tariffs” and “duties” with “taxes”.

The 52.229-3 clause refers to “tax(es) and dut(ies)” and “taxes or duties”, both in the singular and plural senses. They are distinctly addressed in the clause.

Yes, I agree with Don that this clause may* allow an adjustment (up or down) for after award changes to or imposed duties, as stated in multiple posts.

And yes, I agree with Don that a tariff is a type of duty, as stated in multiple posts and in numerous references.

*The 52.229-3 clause excepts or limits such adjustments where and to the extent that the contract price already includes contingencies for increases in excise taxes or duties.

Researching to source a new control module and determine what would be required took me about 8 hours on the Internet and visiting-consulting with my favorite tranny shop and the local Jeep dealer. Efficient Commercial practices. Hmm.

Speaking of commercial practices I recently tried to find the part number for a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee transmission control module for my friend’s widow living in Namibia. She also has a 2014 GC.

The service rep at a local Jeep dealer here in AL told me that Jeep only supports spare parts for Jeeps for ten model years. He couldn’t find part numbers for either of her model year Jeeps even the US models.

I said that sounded stupid. He agreed but indicated that it isn’t just Jeep.

Part of the problem is that Jeep/Chrysler has gone through several owner changes since the 1980’s. But he claimed that other domestic auto manufacturers are going the same way.

To complicate the problem, my friend’s Jeeps were produced in Austria by a plant under contract to Daimler Benz. He said they have transmissions made by Mercedes or other European or Asian suppliers but couldn’t find that information. They weren’t importing transmissions from the US suppliers.

The local service rep tried unsuccessfully to find the VIN numbers for her Jeeps in their Jeep system and on the Internet.

I had found secondary sources for domestic Jeep tranny control modules on the internet but they were for US made Jeeps without the parts numbers. They were running between $100-$200. I suppose that I could have contacted those sources for part numbers.

I did learn that the control module is inside the transmission, requiring removal and tear down. So we wouldn’t be able to know the part number without a tranny removal and tear down.

She lives on a farm that is 150 kilometers from the nearest transmission/Jeep firms. The Jeep will only run in first and second gear at about 20KPH. She said it would be a ten hour drive.

She is a widow and can’t afford a tow thst far. I told her that a $2800 tranny repair on her low mileage Jeep would be better than having to buy a newer vehicle.

So, it isn’t wise in my opinion to simply make general assumptions that commercial practices by original manufacterers are “efficient” or are “best practices”.

1 hour ago, WifWaf said:

I meant they are fixed-price commercial. Edited it above. Thanks, Joel.

Are you recalling a time when the engines were government-developed?

I’m referring to sourcing parts to repair government owned aircraft through the aircraft maker rather from the parts manufacturers.

On 5/23/2025 at 11:59 AM, WifWaf said:

If you have any experience working with a prime contractor that has many aircraft engine part suppliers, you may recognize that adoption of this would be alignment to industry best practices. You know those practices must be good because those engine manufacturers are mostly fixed-price and so have all the risk - therefore they do things efficiently.

I love that one. Reminds me of the $1000 bolts, $650 toilet seats Hundred dollar hammers, etc. when sourcing all parts through the prime aircraft manufacturer.

It. Will certainly be interesting.

In my over forty years in the military and government I found that very few in the military or the government mission or in acquisition treat the taxpayer’s money like their own. They generally weren’t interested in economy or saving money.

The mission users and program managers simply “wanted it all” and wanted to spend up the budget so they wouldn’t face future budget reductions for failure to spend it all.

—-————————————————————

The Air Force in particular had Rolls Royce tastes, desires and demands even when on Yugo budgets, when it came to acquiring facilities.

When I was in the Air Force in the early 1970’s, the USAF was essentially broke. We only had enough money to use the xerox machine in our office for about the first 15 days of each month. If I need to contact any commercial business or any non-DOD entity by phone that wasn’t a local call to an installation with Autovon, I would have to charge calls to my personal phone number.

In my opinion, the desire for Ferrari quality, features and grandeur was realized after Ronald Reagan tripled the Defense Budget over three years, faster than DOD could fully define programs to spend it all. The strategy was to essentially bankrupt he Soviet Union in attempting to keep up with the US DOD. It worked.In my opinion,

But once the trend was established there was no retreat from unbridled desires.

For many years, almost every new USAF construction project contract was awarded well above 100% of the Programmed Amount. They were crafty though. Every year they put enough lower priority projects in the AF MILCON Program to fund the overruns to award new contracts or pay for changes. I forget what the statutory limit on individual project costs was (maybe 125% of the Programmed amount?) but it wasn’t uncommon to get close to the statutory limit.

Many organizations, including those I worked for tend to be self perpetuating bureaucracies. They need to come up with new requirements to justify their existence.

Deleted.

I. Suggest that you ask the office that issued the document with the conflict in it.

“Interested to know if and how FAR 2.0 will address brand name / peculiar items in particular.”

How about the Competition in Contracting Act as a statutory basis? Admission - didnt read CICA sources today. Too busy at the moment…