Vern Edwards

Emphasis added. The contractor is responsible for breaches by its subcontractor. You can grant the extension by supplemental agreement, but you must obtain consideration from the contractor. Consideration could be in the form of a price reduction or something else of value. On the other hand, you could terminate for default if the contractor has no contractual excuse and you don't want to continue under contract. It's up to you as the buyer to decide. I must point out that this is basic contract law and in accord with the terms of government supply contracts. If the delay is caused by the government, then the shoe may be on the other foot unless there is a contract term that permits the government to unilaterally change deliver dates. Generally, the contractor is entitled to an appropriate price adjustment and extension in the case of a government-cased delay. Read your contract.

See Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Chapter VII, The Meaning of Risk and Uncertainty. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/books/risk/riskuncertaintyprofit.pdf See also https://www.theisrm.org/what-is-uncertainty-and-how-it-differs-from-risk/

There has been no response from the OP for seven days. Maybe they read their contract.

Thank you.

Who is Will Roberts? (I don't follow LinkedIn.)

Yes. Plainly so.

In Golden IT, LLc v. United States, COFC 24-1893C, July 14, 2025, a bid protest case, Chief Judge Matthew Solomson opens his decision with the following: Footnote omitted. I had stopped routinely reading bid protest decisions. Pointlessly frustrating. But I think I'll start again.

Let's be careful with use of terminology. REA stands for Request for an Equitable Adjustment. The proper distinction is not between "price adjustment" and REA. The proper distinction, if any, is between "price adjustment" and "equitable adjustment". The FAR does not define either "price adjustment" or "equitable adjustment." However, case law generally provides that an "equitable adjustment" includes an adjustment to both cost and profit. See 2 Government Contract Costs & Pricing § 87:19. The meaning of "price adjustment" depends on the text of the clause that prescribes it. In this case there should be no confusion, because the contract clause, FAR 52.229-6, Taxes-Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts (FEB 2013), clearly states: "the contract price shall be increased by the amount of any after-imposed tax or any tax or duty specification excluded from the contract price...." Italics added.

Thank you, Gentlemen.

Exactly. So why are you so agitated? What are you trying to convince us (or yourself) of? Even if Air Force responds, we still won't know. We'll never have enough info to stop speculation. Did I upset you by saying "Think like a lawyer"? Chill.

Emphasis added. Source?

Emphasis added. @formerfed @joel hoffman Now, what leads you two to the conclusion that the requirement is being eliminated? The fact that "the requirement owner" would like to remove the options? I see nothing in the OP to justify that conclusion. According to the OP, it's part of a "DOGE cut drill." My speculation is that DOGE is insisting on a mod to delete the options so it can "document" a claim that it reduced the contract "price" and thus saved money, thus justifying its existence.. Let's see if Air Force One clears things up.

The contract in question appears to be for long-term services. There is likely no "future planning" advantage (what other kind of planning is there?) to losing the options, because there is no issue of fixed production capacity. The contractor likely hires as needed. But there is a kind of loss, because the government usually exercises service options unless the requirement goes away or performance is poor. The contractor may have considered that to be a reason to lower its first year price, calculating the likely long term pricing advantage. If the options are to be eliminated because the requirement is going away, that's one thing. But if there has not been a determination that the requirement is going away, if DOGE simply wants to report "savings" be eliminating the options, that may be another thing entirely. A board or court might consider that to be a matter of first impression. You ask someone to compete for a requirement that enticingly include options, which provide an advantage in obtaining future business, and with price evaluated including those option prices. What's to prevent a contractor from pricing based on the long term possibility? And then you take that advantage away. Why? Think about it. Think about it like a lawyer.

One thought: If the option prices were evaluated as part of the award of the original contract, would deletion of the options be grounds for a scope of the competition protest? Just asking. Sheer speculation without analysis. 🤔 (Don't confuse deletion of the options with termination for convenience.)

The lesson of this thread is that it is very difficult to write airtight definitions, That's why I can't wait to see the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul's rewrite of FAR Part 2, which contains about 260 definitions, only 61 of which are from the U.S.C.

In the mid-1950s government contracting was in crisis because Congress had discovered that 90+ percent of DOD contract awards were being made through contracting by negotiation instead of sealed bidding. The House of Representatives created a special subcommittee to investigate. In its 1957 investigation report, the subcommittee stated the following: Report on Study of Armed Services Procurement Act, Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 137, Subcommittee for Special Investigations of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session, June 15, 1957, pp. 642-643. Today, the annual "procurement program" is valued at about $800+ billion and growing.

I don't think any mod is necessary. A letter would do. But it appears that DOGE wants one, and I don't think the government has any contractual authority to unilaterally mod the contract to delete an option. But, I really don't care.

An optionn is an offer with an extended acceptance period. The contractor has no right to the exercise of an option, but the government has the right to exercise that option. The mere existence of an option does not obligate funds. Funds are obligated when the option is exercised. You probably know all this. There is no contractual reason to delete an option, except, perhaps, to let the contractor know you're rejecting their option offer and that they are off the hook. But if DODE insists on a mod and you don't want to say no, write a supplemental agreement.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed.: mod‧i‧fy mŏd′ə‑fī′v. mod‧i‧fied, mod‧i‧fy‧ing, mod‧i‧fies v. tr.To change in form or character; alter.To make less extreme, severe, or strong: refused to modify her stand on the issue. GrammarTo qualify or limit the meaning of. For example, summer modifies day in the phrase a summer day. LinguisticsTo change (a vowel) by umlaut. mod‧i‧fi‧ca‧tion mŏd′ə‑fĭ‑kā′shən n. The act or process of modifying or the condition of being modified.A change or a result produced by modifying: new modifications in the car’sdesign. LinguisticsA change undergone by a word that is borrowed from another language.A phonological change undergone by a word or morpheme when it is used in a construction, as the change of will to 'll in they'll.mod′i‧fi‧ca′torn.mod′i‧fi‧ca′to‧ry‑kā′tə‑rē, mod′i‧fi‧ca′tive‑kā′tĭvadj.* So, what kind of change to a commercially-available off the shelf product be a "modification" of a commercial available off-the-shelf product, as mentioned in the FAR definition? Change of what? Or, would any and every kind of change to any part of the product constitute such a modification?

Question: I am looking at a catalog of Randall Made Knives. They come in standard designs. Clearly off-the-shelf. But standard customizations are available, such as engraving one's initials on a hilt. Would such a standard customization mean that an off-the-shelf knife is no longer off-the-shelf?

l agree wholeheartedly. The A-E selection process should be used for contractor selection and contract formation for all major system procurements and procurements for long-term complex services. I first proposed that in an article published in 1997 and in several articles since. Our current competitive negotiation process dates from the 19th Century.

@Guardian Great question! Unfortunately for me I know next to nothing about machine learning and AI and have little interest in it. But I think there are others here, like Don Mansfield, who might engage with you. Thanks for posting.

@Self Employed No offense taken. The quality the information posted here is generally a reflection of the quality of the initial post in a thread. Most initial posts ask elementary questions. The answers are usually elementary. A journeyman contract specialist should not expect to learn much from such Q&As. But this is is supposed to be a discussion board. Unfortunately, there is very little discussion of ideas here. Contracting people do not seem to be idea people. They are task-focused. The just want a quick answer to a question in order to advance a process. WIFCON responses to such questions are generally adequate, but rarely interesting. What would be an interesting question? How about this: QUESTION: Does it make sense to apply the economic concept of "price" and the government concept of "fair and reasonable price" to contracts for major system development acquisitions such as the USAF sixth-generation F-47 fighter program? If not, then should FAR Subpart 15.4 as presently written apply to such acquisitions? If not, then how should we think about the dollar amounts to be stated in such contracts? What are they really? And what should FAR say about them? Where would you "look" for answers to those questions, Self Employed?

The biggest problem with the FAR is that it implements laws that reflect 19th Century government ideas. After the “revolution” it will still implement laws that reflect 19th Century government ideas.

Experts? Talking?