Early Award with Delayed Period of Performance

[REA'n Maker]

This scenario would also be somewhat applicable to an option exercise ("is there such a thing as exercising an option too early?").

What if your awardee ends up on the SAM/PPIRS naughty list between award and start of the PoP?  What if their SAM registration expires before the start of the PoP? The FAR requires a CO to check SAM for exclusions immediately before award (I was dinged in an audit for checking SAM the morning of the award, which occurred later that afternoon.) The obvious intent is to make sure you're not awarding to an ineligible vendor.  "They were fine when I checked them 2 months ago" won't fly.

What is the upside of awarding early?  Of all the posts on this topic I have yet to see anyone justify why it's in the best interest of the Government to award months before the start of the PoP (e.g., for supplies, supply chain lead-time might be a justification).

[ji20874]

25 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

Of all the posts on this topic I have yet to see anyone justify why it's in the best interest of the Government to award months before the start of the PoP...

You list one example.  We do not know the OP's reason, but there are many, many reasons that an experienced professional could imagine where it might make sense to have a space of time before date of award and the start of the performance period.

[Vern Edwards]

2 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

What is the upside of awarding early?

 

Just now, ji20874 said:

We do not know the OP's reason...

 

Pay attention, people. The OP recently posted this:

On 6/24/2024 at 7:36 AM, FLContracts said:

Advantages of early award include:

1. Getting over the protest window earlier, reducing uncertainty (if competitive).
2. Allowing the contractor to prepare for the new contract period, including updating necessary documentation or systems, staff, etc.
3. Enabling current TO to utilize any remaining funds on the current contract and minimize doing a De-Ob
4. Providing more time for the contractor to plan for seamless continuity of services under the new contract terms.
5. Beating PALT, which is a significant efficiency gain.

[REA'n Maker]

37 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

there are many, many reasons that an experienced professional could imagine where it might make sense to have a space of time before date of award and the start of the performance period.

There are many, many reasons that an experienced professional could imagine where it might not make sense to have a space of time before date of award and the start of the performance period.

 

[REA'n Maker]

16 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Pay attention, people. The OP recently posted this:

Yes, but what on that list is in the Government's best interest?  "Beating PALT" is administrivia, "closing the protest window earlier" doesn't make a protest less likely to occur (and there is pretty much 0% chance a protest would be resolved by the start of the PoP anyway), "Enabling current TO to utilize any remaining funds on the current contract and minimize doing a De-Ob" has nothing to do with an early award, and "providing the contractor more time to plan" is pure conjecture and begs the question of unauthorized pre-contract costs.

So, my question still stands.  For the record, my point was more existential in nature, as in "every CO should ask themselves this question as Step 1".

[Vern Edwards]

Just now, REA'n Maker said:

So, my question still stands. 

How about:

Allowing the contractor to prepare for the new contract period, including updating necessary documentation or systems, staff, etc.

and

Providing more time for the contractor to plan for seamless continuity of services under the new contract terms.

I don't think the latter is "pure conjecture", but even if it is, it's not unreasonable conjecture.

 

[REA'n Maker]

42 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

How about:

Allowing the contractor to prepare for the new contract period, including updating necessary documentation or systems, staff, etc.

and

Providing more time for the contractor to plan for seamless continuity of services under the new contract terms.

I don't think the latter is "pure conjecture", but even if it is, it's not unreasonable conjecture.

 

1. Would you say it's appropriate for the government to engage with the new contractor during the limbo between award and PoP start date?  Or is the presumption that the vendor do all the planning and preparation and hope for the best? Every transition I've been involved with requires government involvement and approval.
2. Can the new awardee engage with the existing vendor when planning their seamless continuity of services?  Seems kind of pointless otherwise.
3. 99% of government contracts are not awarded early and yet all the stuff you mention happens anyway. i.e., "early award" is clearly not required for proper transition planning.  Where is the data that suggests otherwise?

Conjecture or not, contractors taking any action related to a contract with no coverage is a risk.  And when they file their claim the Government will be on record as tacitly encouraging them to incur those costs. 

Is it reasonable to assume all these actions can be accomplished at no cost?

[* The rationale I've seen so far reads like a "parade of horribles"]

 

[C Culham]

34 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

How about:

 

12 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

contractors taking any action related to a contract with no coverage is a risk.

The discussion is great with regard to a "new" contractor.   Great because it does generate thoughtful considerations.  

For the instant matter my mind just keeps going back to -  "Incumbant contractor"; a "CPFF Task Order" where we know nothing about how many Task Orders, other than the one eluded to, have been held by the contractor;  by the way I think LOE should really be "term" as I think LOE is redundant; an inability to sole source where competition amongst IDIQ holders was required; and maybe more if I thought hard.    

So how about this reasoning -

The task order was competed under an IDIQ.  The sole  contractor who has responded has been performing the same work adequately.  There is no statute, regulation or policy that prevents use of the specific funding on this ORDER for award to occur on XXXX.  Therefore, early award will obligate the money so that it is not lost and allow the contracting office to move on to other matters.  At award direction will be given to the contractor that incurring any costs prior to the stipulated performance period start date will be at the sole risk of the contractor.  (Here one might indicated what exceptions, if any.) 

[Vern Edwards]

16 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

Would you say it's appropriate for the government to engage with the new contractor during the limbo between award and PoP start date?  

Let's assume that the award is not conditioned upon the availability of funds.

That being the case, my answer is yes, it's appropriate.

18 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

Or is the presumption that the vendor do all the planning and preparation and hope for the best?

No.

18 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

Can the new awardee engage with the existing vendor when planning their seamless continuity of services? 

Yes. The question is whether the existing contractor is obligated to cooperate with its replacement.

19 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

99% of government contracts are not awarded early...

I don't know that to be true. Please cite the source of your facts, presuming you have any. Or is your assertion merely presumptuous? 

20 minutes ago, REA'n Maker said:

... "early award" is clearly not required for proper transition planning

I would say that depends on why you mean by "early"? I don't think "proper" would ordinarily include awarding a complex contract the day before performance is to begin. Do you? It seems reasonable to say that any contract should be awarded sufficiently in advance to permit the parties to coordinate. Wouldn't you agree? And what if the contract were awarded "without discussions"? And what kind of contract are you talking about?

[Voyager]

On 6/25/2024 at 9:38 AM, Vern Edwards said:

FAR 1.102(d) was written by people who wanted to sound encouraging. I have cited it many times. But the truth is that citing it in response to a request for insight and guidance from a self-proclaimed junior contract specialist, who did not ask a clear question and did not provide essential context, and leaving it at that is an act of futility and dismissal.

I think the problem with simply citing FAR 1.102(d) to anyone, especially young workforce members, is that the suggestion is incomplete.  This FAR paragraph is only an invitation to research concepts that the FAR does not restrict or supplement.  It is not an invitation to innovate based on what you feel is sound business judgment.  That is pure hubris.  But that is all we will get from our people if we don't teach them how to research and take notes.  The trick is getting to the kids before DAU or FAI frames success in this career field as a solving a puzzle or open-book quiz.  It's more like a mystery with no end.

I guess I am essentially writing of the difference between training and education.

[Vern Edwards]

3 hours ago, Voyager said:

I guess I am essentially writing of the difference between training and education.

EDUCATION: Concepts, Principles, Rules

TRAINING: Processes, Procedures, Techniques