C Culham

The greatest habit! It not only applies to acquisition but to every day life, especially in these current times.

If true I would conclude as you have that a IGE does not meet the intent of the AFARS. In support I would offer this document (link below) which I think is still current. While the docment deals with services to a large part it does provide an example of an IGE for goods and services which could help in determining what is enough detail and sufficent narrative again suggesting that "zero" does not quite cut it. https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/docs/sa/DoD_IGCE_for_SA_Handbook.pdf

Specific to the Army, no. I think that the Army states the imperative for an IGE for all procurements over the SAT. Reference 5107.9002(a).

@Don Mansfield post is straight forward. Keying in on your quote referenced above keep in mind that FAR 26.200 says this... "26.200 Scope of subpart. This subpart implements the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ( 42U.S .C.5150), which provides a preference for local organizations, firms, and individuals when contracting for major disaster or emergency assistance activities." I think the FAR is lacking at 26.201 as it does not carry this definition regarding the Stafford Act from 42 USC 5122 to the FAR definitions in 26.201. 42 USC 5122 at (3) says this.... "“United States” means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands."

@Maquoketa To help support the information that @joel hoffman has provided I suggest that you, as well as who is "telling" you, take a long hard read of the Bona Fide Needs rule that can be found here - https://www.wifcon.com/bonafidecontents.htm The discussion of the website will then lead to references in the GAO "Red Book" and discussion of Multiyear Contracts and no year appropriations.

Maybe not a sriaght forward question as one might think!

I would ask Acme.

I might also add the same rationale that an agency would or would not used the clause as by my read the clause is not required. The "may" in 27.409(g) along with FAR 12.212 and 27.405-3. Or in other words GSA has made a decision with regard to their GSA Schedules just as an agency would make a decision for any of its contracts.

I apologize for my distraction as I think I understood the question from the get go. My response is essentially the same as my first response in this thread.

Personal experience. Student in her final year of a 4 year college degree. A relative. End of semester. Sitting in a bar with her. She had a laptop and a cell phone with her to "take" the final. She pulled up the "virtual exam" on her computer, using her cell phone with this app https://socratic.org/ on it, would photo the mulitple choice question, the app would provide plausible answers of which she would read and then choose the multiple choice response. I watched over her shoulder. Many times almost the exact wording would come up in the plausible response. The class - an upper division course in entomology. What I learned - I think the professor might have used the app to develop the test. I also learned about "Google Eye" at the same time. Admittedly I am old with the new virtual world of "learning" unfolding in front of me. But I still wonder if it all makes up for social interaction? Time will tell I guess.

I am not going to wrack my brain but as I follow I have this quick thought. In applying FAR part 12 and noting it is common practice why would it not be a "no cost" contract and as dumb as it might sound not require a justification. I pose this thought with a subsequent question - Is not the value less than the SAT and as such a simple determination of reasonably available from one source and as zero value no need to synosize? I do not need feedback on this thought, just something I thought I would throw out there for consideration.

At my age I do have difficulty grasping the "pure" virtual environment so I admit that my response to the second question is biased. I do not think an individual can develop and learn contracting in a "pure" virtual enviroment. Communication via human interaction is the issue. While there are many tools in the virtual environment that assist in communication I still believe to this day that my knowledge, skills and abilities were enhanced by face to face communication. Communication face to face with mentors, peers, bosses, etc. on the agency side and with contractors at their offices, job sites, and in other environments (such as USACE partnering). There is "that something" that is gained by human interaction and "that something" is very important to the contracting business in my view. #IYKYK

My first thought is what does the contractor think/intend? Or in other words ask the contractor why the one order is not "in" their package.

You may want to do some research on "Open Source Software" (OSS). It might fit your situation.

Sort of in my view. Others have already opined. Here are my thoughts. First I emphasized your post. Remember the allowance for options is "period" therefore any period you want to specify. Second, and here is where I depart from others just a little. Considering FAR 17.204(b) which says "(b) The contract shall state the period within which the option may be exercised." and the wording of FAR clasue 52.217-9 I would massage the clause (remember it by prescription only has to be substantially the same) to indicate that the option to extend is through April 30 but performance is to April 29. I say this as to me performance and contract "period" are two different things. Or in other words you are exercising the period of the contract with work to take place during certain times within that period. I have offered this thought as I just wonder if the period ends on April 29 is there any contract to exercise on May 1? At least this is the way I did it when it came to staffing contracted look-out towers for the Forest Service. After thought - Also the title of clause 52.217-9 is "Option to Extend Term of Contract"!