Voyager

No, @C Culham is saying that. His post is his own rewording of page 12 of the decision, not a quote from GAO. But the case the GAO encountered of a CO not inserting the right (or any) provisions into a task order solicitation is a problem that happens all too often, I find. All you policy reviewers out there should hold your COs to the DAU Clause and Provision Matrix on their task order solicitations. Use judgment to disregard the ones that are N/A. These nitty-gritty details are what we lose when we use GWACs and the MAS. We throw out the baby (good contract formation) with the bath water (regs that need streamlined) when we rely on these empire-building COs to make swathes of the FAR N/A. Take care of your requirements, folks. They are your babies.

Regardless of any talk of repealing CICA, award system complexity increases when you don't get competition, because then many COs (with or without reviewing DFARS PGI 215.404-2) decide to get a proposal audit. Background on this problem is best stated by the Section 809 Panel in its Recommendation 7 (footnotes removed and emphasis my own): It goes on to say an attestation examination engagement of a contractor proposal produces an audit product irrelevant to the Contracting Officer's need (to develop a negotiating position). My magic wand to solve this problem, then, is to establish a go-to cadre of personable, informed, non-risk-averse DCAA auditors that are able to provide COs the tailored assistance the Panel goes on to recommend. See those at the Panel's DTIC website here, under Subrecommendation 7c, e.g., the one listed below: The cadre could follow the DCMA Commercial Item Group's model of manifesting itself.

Are you asking this question because you are writing an IDIQ’s task ordering procedures?

Curios[sic], check out this thread and try to figure out for yourself whether you’re setting out on the wrong foot in your acq planning.

These are really accurate descriptions of the people I’ve encountered in my past 15 years of 1102 work.

Is it because the cost realism analysis should be analyzing hours here, not labor rates?

Should this type of contractor almost always be given a FFP LOE instead of a CPFF? I’m worried about audits now.

Are they working under an IDIQ or not? If IDIQ, single-award or MAC?

If this is a commercial service/product, the CO can modify the period of performance (PoP)/delivery date(s) citing FAR 52.212-4(c) and (f) in the SF 30 Block 13.C. See my citations and emphasis below in that clause. If this is a noncommercial service/product, the CO can modify the PoP/delivery date(s) citing the contract's applicable FAR 52.243-X changes clause, applicable FAR 52.249-X termination (excusable delay) clause, and FAR 43.103(a) in the SF 30 Block 13.C. In either case, the CO should put a release of claims in the modification to resolve the matter once and for all. Use the one in FAR Part 43. Obviously, this is done bilaterally.

Read this briefing paper by Vern Edwards, especially the part about severability. http://www.wifcon.com/articles/BP_21-9_wbox.pdf

FAR 52.212-4 says (with my emphasis): My initial advice is that "excusable delays" are a matter that is crucial to contract administration, and, as shown above, a strike is excusable. Research what "excusable" means in government contracting, and then come on back here with the results pertinent to your current problem. Try going to Google, then in the search box typing... ...then reading as much as you have time to read. I promise to help you today if you first help yourself by using your powers of research to reexamine the premise in your OP: "I have a commercial contract that needs to be paused, due to a strike going on."

Wow, this topic’s resurrection leading to Vern’s last post has really helped answer the OP! Thank you all, but especially @Krimzand @Vern Edwards. I fear many COs use the third option, acquiescence, instead of the fifth, forbearance. Beginners and others alike should resolve to change that (see Krimz’s posts to learn how to forbear). My OP asked for the difference between the fourth option, new contract (or change order to be followed by supplemental agreement), and the fifth option. I’m glad I asked, because the fourth is a lot of hassle (and changes clause is probably the wrong authority).

I totally agree with you, Vern. I wish the more complex contracts’ source selections were, instead of a competition for award, a competition for the opportunity to negotiate single-source with the agency, fully and freely (protest-free), perhaps even with the IGCE openly compared to the offer. I wish we could grant favor during the source section process to the offeror with the best promissory language and the best experience and past performance. And that’s it! Since we are in the beginners forum, I will leave the following link as further reading on the subject to invite inquiry. https://www.wifcon.com/anal/analcomproc.htm

Stalin is quoted as saying, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.” Okay, so you got me there, given that we’re talking in absolutes (you said “fully free of” and I said “only when”). The higher the dollar amount at stake, the greater the chance the absolute conditions we are talking in will fail to prove true. It seems logical that this is because the negotiators grow further from the work itself, and thus fall captive to that sad truism the People’s Commisar taught us nearly a century ago. I therefore revise my proposition to the following instead: Only when a human life is on the line, and both parties know his name. I have seen this prove true in construction negotiations that are subject to FAR 52.236-13, Accident Prevention, with Alt. I - an alternate prescribed for the most hazardous of jobs. The workforce just has to be entirely known - and known to be risking life and limb - and then all the statistics go out the window (in the early days of mask shortages, I even saw this shine through in COVID clause negotiations). A workforce resident at a GOCO facility performing construction like in my agency will always be known, and are often known to be risking their lives. I, for one, would never hide what I know from my contractor counterpart when negotiating their more hazardous work.

Only when human life is on the line, and both parties realize it.