Jamaal Valentine

@Guardian This may be painful, but remember you asked for it. What are the differences? (noting that “option” means a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Government may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract, or may elect to extend the term of the contract.) Are you simply distinguishing the option (unilateral right) from the period (term of the option)? FAR Subpart 17.2 references options, option quantities and periods. Let's start with the rules. FAR 4.1003 establishes requirements for separate line items. FAR 4.1005-1 outlines the data elements for line items; paragraphs ( c ) & ( d )--in particular--relate to options. Pair this information with the information, and common methods, at FAR 17.204. How does your contract identify the options under 52.217-9? (FAR 17.204(f)(1), (2), or (3)...maybe (g) or something different) FAR 17.204(f)(3) seems to apply because you provided that you have: You should be getting closer to refining (or defining) what an option is pursuant to your contract clause. (a unilateral right to exercise the identified schedule CLINS in strict accordance with their terms...but what are their terms? Synthesizing your contract terms & conditions including the schedule CLINs and option clause (52.217-9) will tell you) Presumably your option clause states (1) a preliminary notification requirement; and (2) a period within which the option(s) may be exercised. If you've satisfied these and the options are separately identified why wouldn't the contract terms provide the government the unilateral right to exercise all, some, or none of the options in strict accord?

No, why would I; I was responding to your opening question. No. Is it better than the original? (I'm skeptical that it's improved or a single question, but I'll check.) The beginners forum is for members who need basic help. It provides gentler and sometimes more responsive commentary. If you want help you'll need to ask a good question and/or use courtesy.

I don't understand the question. FAR 2.101 defines 'option'; FAR Subpart 17.2 prescribes policies and procedures for the use of options; and FAR 52.217-9 outlines the specific terms and conditions of a particular option to extend the term of a contract (see FAR 17.208(g)). I recommend asking your supervisor and/or posting in the beginners forum.

@bob7947 and @ji20874 Amen.

I presume the context is: In my mind, the Antideficiency Act is the universal requirement to fund obligations. The act prohibits federal agencies from obligations or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation. I don't think a universal definition of fund, funds, or funding has been used in this thread. Seems some are suggesting that funding occurs when an order with line of accounting is issued to a contractor. Some seem to think funding can come later - seemingly distinguishing between recording and funding, but not addressing ADA. I believe funding occurs much earlier during appropriation and commitment. No need for a mystery or guessing game though...everyone can explain what they mean. I haven't found a universal usage in FAR and its supplements neither. For example, what does 'obligate funds' mean here: 5316.504 Indefinite-Quantity Contracts (1) See MP5316.504 for the requirement to obligate funds when awarding indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. However, FAR Subpart 32.7, Contract Funding, which I cited earlier offers some insight: (bold emphasis added)

@ji20874 thank you ... I see what you mean. You're correct; they are different actions. I should have directed my thoughts to contract funding pursuant to FAR Subpart 32.7: "No officer or employee of the Government may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available, or in advance of appropriations (Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341), unless otherwise authorized by law. Before executing any contract, the contracting officer shall -- (a) Obtain written assurance from responsible fiscal authority that adequate funds are available or (b) Expressly condition the contract upon availability of funds in accordance with 32.703-2." Funding can described as the appropriation (or continuing resolution) and administrative commitment of an appropriation (FAR 32.702(a)). These happen in advance of an obligation (e.g., IDIQ minimum guarantee). Contract funding can be fully funded, partially (incrementally) funded, or subject to the availability of funds. After an obligation is funded and created it must be recorded within a timeframe. Requirements to fund obligations, by issuing an order, when awarding IDIQ contracts in the Air Force are based on a supplement stating: "obligation shall be recorded based upon the issuance of a delivery or task order for the cost/price of the minimum quantity specified...Recording and subsequently reporting the required obligation using anything other than a delivery or task order will result in the action not being reported in FPDS-NG. (See DoD 7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 8, paragraph 080604)." Appropriation – Legal basis for withdrawing funds from the treasury and may contain specific provisions for specific expenditures. Commitment – an administrative reservation of funds from a responsible fiscal authority in anticipation of future obligation. Obligation – act legally binding the Government to make payment.

In what way(s)? Within context, it seems recording is tantamount to funding and vice versa, but not necessarily issuing an order. (based on the rules regarding over- or underrecording) I guess what I am really questioning is if you can have recording without funding or funding without recording. I should revist the definitions of Fiscal Law terms like appropriation, commitment, obligation, and recording. (appropriation is probably the real 'funding') Reminds me of this myth-busting post:

@PD216ohio wasn't there a de facto solicitation amendment to require submission of a specific experience form? The experience form wasn't required initially, correct?

Joel, you didn't answer my question. Are you saying that when used as a technical requirement, experience is not a responsibility-type factor? My points are exactly as previously written. Under GAO case law, proposal documents relating to a contractor’s responsibility may be submitted any time prior to award, regardless of contrary statements in the solicitation. GAO confirms that agencies are required to evaluate responsibility documents received after the proposal deadline and before award or earlier down-select evaluation. I am not sure what your point, if any, is in stating the following: Okay, you restated my previous comments regarding GAO and experience. Now, what is your point? Can you gather how experience was used in this case? Does the OP know? I don't know...I'm just laying out the rules that may be relevant and possibilities since it's an unclear post in the beginners forum.

I understand that. Are you saying that when used as a technical requirement, experience is not a responsibility-type factor?

What is this assertion based on? Case law? The solicitation language? GAO has routinely stated that experience is a traditional responsibility factors such as those listed in FAR 9.104-1. When used as an evaluation factor it remains a responsibility-type factor. Do you know if the experience was a pass/fail or comparative evaluation factor?

@PD216ohio You can file the protest and see if your thinking was correct...that's worth a lot, right? You raise several points and can find out if they are with or without merit. Probably the least expensive, reliable government contract training you can find. Also, if you truly believe the office messed up, isn't there value in accountability?

Experience is a traditional responsibility factor, right? Why couldn't the government ask for specific responsibility related information after the due date? See Chags Heath Info. Tech., LLC, B-413104.30 et al., Apr. 11, 2019, where GAO explained that “responsibility and technical acceptability are distinct matters” and that “[r]esponsibility may be satisfied at any time prior to award, as opposed to technical acceptability, which must be satisfied based on a common proposal deadline.”

I'm with ji. There are long-standing precedents allowing retroactive amendments and extensions; agencies are granted a lot of discretion to amend their solicitation. Even if your beliefs were true, GAO would likely permit retroactive amendment and extension to accommodate multiple otherwise-late quoters/offerors to correct their error (omission) and/or increase competition.

Hopefully it's not going to end up like TransDigm Group, Inc. During this testimony I heard the term best obtainable price ... it was used in conjunction with fair and reasonable.

Wow...I appreciate them allowing the contracting officer discretion (the right call); however, the agency's assertion that its "clearly in the best interest of the government to rent newer model vehicles"? Not buy - rent. How is it clearly in the best interest? More like it's arguably in the best interest of the government ... so let's hear the argument.

Thank you, Bob; this is a timely post. Organizations are increasingly seeking 'dashboards' that provide a simple view to present relevant information, show trends, risky areas, and facilitate data-driven decisions. I can see where this demonstration program might prove useful; however, my first read concluded that the program would extend to a single chosen installation.

@BigBirdContracting81 Please find and cite that case. The option PoP remains unchanged, right? Doesn't the option (offer) have to be exercised (accepted) in strict accordance with its terms? The terms include the PoP, right?

I believe @Prospect was simply looking for two answers: *question marks added

@BigBirdContracting81 I don't read a limitation on the earliest date the option can be exercised in accordance with the clause. Do you? Why do you think June 22, 2020 is the earliest date?

@BigBirdContracting81 Based on your contract clause's language, what do you think? Can they properly exercise option 2 concurrently?

@BigBirdContracting81 You're welcome. Also, here is the pertinent part of FAR 52.217-9(a): "(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within _____ [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option]; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least ___ days [60 days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the contract expires." (bold emphasis added) Regarding option 2, when may the government extend the term? (that's what I meant, in my original post, when I asked what the option clause said) By the way, @ji20874 is a wealth of knowledge...I doubt he was starting trouble with you. Relax.

Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 41 GC ¶ 308 (“[A]n attempt to exercise an option outside its terms does not constitute a valid exercise of the option.”); Griffin Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 52280 et al., 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,943, at 157,803 (“The Government’s exercise of an option must be unconditional and done in strict accordance with its terms. Any attempt by the Government offeree to alter the conditions of the option will render the exercise of it ineffective.”); Contel Page Servs. Inc., ASBCA No. 32100, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19,540, at 98,734 (an option must be unconditionally accepted and any attempt to alter the option terms will render exercise of the option ineffective); Holly Corp., ASBCA No. 24975, 83-1 BCA ¶ 16,327, at 81,164 (“the notice by which the power of an option holder is exercised must be unconditional and in exact accord with the terms of the option” (citing Corbin on Contracts § 264 (1963)).

What does the option clause say? The clause should indicate when the option(s) may be exercised. (If they want to exercise option 2 early, first modify the option clause language so that option 2 can be exercised in strict accordance with its [new] terms ... then exercise option 2)

Why does the government care about meals, mileage, or travel costs at all? If the work will be competitively awarded as FFP and evaluated using price analysis what's the goal? The requirement seems defined well enough so that the field of competition can compete intelligently: I wonder if this is going to be labeled as a PBSA; and if the contracting officer satisfied FAR 7.108.