Air Force One

Thanks for the commentary on this topic. Here's another one to ponder. Regardless of the Contracting Officer's decision to issue a unilateral or bi-lateral modification to remove options three and four...does the modification (contract action) require clearance if the total reduced value of the contract exceeds the agency's clearance threshold?

Consider the following scenario: You are in the base year of a contract with base year plus four option years. The requirement owner would like to remove option years three and four by modification as part of a DOGE cut drill. Can this be done unilaterally or should a bi-lateral modification be executed. One might ask: Why do a modification at all? Simply do not exercise option three when the time comes. This approach does not satisfy the DOGE cut drill as the total dollar value remains the same in FPDS and other data sources. DOGE requests the options be removed from the contract to enable reduction of the total contract value. Thoughts?