Itinerant CO

@joel hoffman I did, thank you! Vern's original questions were similar to what I was asking myself when I was first approached (it also tasted a bit political to me), but since it wasn't in reference to any particular requirement, I felt at a loss to ask meaningful probing questions. That was also why I thought to turn to policy to see if it was allowable under any circumstances. Thanks to everyone for offering your input on this!

I was recently asked by a customer whether we could require prospective contractors to hire union labor. I haven't been able to find anything definitively stating the answer, but my instincts say the answer is "no". This is based on the existence of the FAR Part 22 guidance on collective bargaining agreements (CBA). If we could require contractors to hire union labor, why wouldn't we just say that instead of (or perhaps in addition to) requiring new contractors to honor the incumbent's wage rates? Then again, if requiring a CBA or union labor isn't explicitly prohibited, might it be allowable? Does anyone have any insight on this matter?

For me, new positions with a pay/grade increase usually have turned out to have a different kind of stress, not necessarily more if I can figure out how to manage it properly. However, I've noticed that things like a longer (up to 2 hr one way) commute affected my ability to cope with stress - especially if telework is restricted or unavailable. That being said, I've always seen that upgrade and learning to manage new/different responsibilities with equanimity as a challenge to be mastered. Here's what I tend to ask myself: How will this position move me closer to my overall career goals? Will passing on this opportunity hinder the achievement of my career goals? Does the prospective agency have a reputation of contracting excellence, or at least not a bad reputation? How can I feel a sense of pride or fulfillment in this new job? (Sometimes being the best CS/CO you can be just doesn't cut it. This could be mission-related, mentoring others, etc.) Good luck in whatever you choose! This is a good problem to have.

There's one called "Government Contracting Officer Podcast".

Hi Freyr, I interpret the last sentence of FAR 52.217-7 to indicate delivery speed, not price. For instance, if your base CLINS are required to be delivered 30 days ARO, then your option CLINS would generally be required to be delivered within 30 days after the contractor received the exercised option - unless you agreed to something else. You could also think of it in context of something that is supposed to be delivered in multiple shipments and a specified rate (i.e. 5 ea/month for 6 months). Either way, I think I would use something more along the lines of FAR 52.217-9 in your scenario. You can set the number of days for the advanced notice and the exercise of the option at whatever you need, but I would just be conscious of how much notice a contractor might need to adjust their manpower or cleaning supplies. If they're going to need to order anything special for that optional service, more advanced notice might be warranted. If its just a matter of cleaning an additional small area, maybe 1-2 days notice is all that's needed. The beauty of all the option provisions and clauses prescribed by FAR 17.208 is that they are all "substantially the same as...". Maybe this is an opportunity to write something that fits your situation better than the standard clauses.

Based on the FAR alone, is there a requirement to post the documentation/justification of the decision to award to an "single source" for an emergency (unusual and compelling urgency) under the SAT using the authority of FAR 13.106-1(b)? Here's what I've found/reasoned out with colleagues so far: FAR Part 6 does not apply (FAR 6.001(a)), therefore the posting guidance of FAR 6.305 also does not directly apply FAR Subpart 13.5 also does not apply if the requirement is under the SAT (FAR 13.500(a)) FAR 5.202(a)(2) absolves us of the requirement to post prior to award because of the "unusual and compelling urgency" FAR Subpart 5.3 would also seem to indicate that no positing of the documentation/justification is required after award if under the SAT All this information leads me to the conclusion that the answer to my original question above is "NO", but it feels like I might be missing something. Thoughts?