Search the Community
Showing results for tags '52.217-9'.
Found 2 results
-
My understanding of the correct way to use these clauses is this: 52.217-9 is used to exercise options that are already named in the contract, thereby extending the PoP in an expected way. The correct way to interpret 52.217-8 is that it gives the Gov't the ability to extend a service contract for up to 6 months, within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. "Within the limits" to me means without a change in scope. I believe this is considered a unilateral right of the Gov't (in practice I would exercise an unplanned extension like this as a bilateral mod whenever possible). Does the forum agree this is the correct way to interpret these clauses? I have this question because I have seen these two clauses, and especially -8, used very inconsistently. For example, at my (non-DOD) agency many contracts, particularly for five-year (one-year base and four 1-yr options) include a six-month option for the end of the contract meant to be exercised only if needed to bridge the gap before awarding to re-compete the same requirement. This Option 5 as I understand it is covered/authorized under 52.217-9. FAR 52.217-8 applies in the case that there is no existing option to bridge the gap, or perhaps even if there is a six-month option. On the other hand, I know that FAR 17.204(e) and 22.1002-1 say that service contracts (base+options) should not exceed 5 years. Wouldn't this mean that if you have a five year PoP, then you shouldn't use 52.217-8 at all? And you should not include that six-month option on top of a five year PoP either. Edit - I have also read this thread https://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/forums/topic/16805-52217-8-is-an-actual-6-month-option-line-really-required-to-be-priced-at-time-of-award/ which helps, but it still leaves me wondering if it's permissible to include the clause and option in addition to a five-year contract. If not, it would be nice to clear that up since there seems to be rampant use of it. And also, if having the clause in there without the option present actually allows for an extension with a J&A, if you are in a pinch and need to extend the services term. -