MustangBob Posted October 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 ^Thanks Vern.... Sounds like another potential blog topic? or is this not exciting enough?!? Fortunately, I passed this action back to the contracting officer that awarded the sole source contract. So essentially I washed my hands of this matter, but have provided my opinion and it appears that he has provided compelling argument to OGC to afford us the ability to do another J&A for the 6 month -8 extension. Coming from DoD, we evaluated -8 along with the option years covered in -9 up front so I never had the issues I was facing with this sole source contract. This is something I plan to implement with my new employer...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Vern, I mostly agree with you. The question apparently related to whether or not extending the contract another 6 months is within the scope of the original justification and approval to sole source negotiate the contract. If the J&A specified a period of up to 12 months, from the data eventually provided, the lawyers appear to have ruled that a further extension was out of scope. Thus, another sole source justification is necessary and the parties would have to agree to the extension and the terms. Certainly, it ecould be framed as an option to extend "up to" six months. As for evaluating or analyzing the actual price(s), it makes no sense to me to say that the "option" price wasn't evaluated. It had to be evaluated -- analyzed when they negotiated it. They would (apparently) be extending the existing , negotiated contract price(s). In addition, before exercising an option, 17.207 requires the KO to evaluate whether the extension is in the best interest of the government, prices included in the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 In addition, before exercising an option, 17.207 requires the KO to evaluate whether the extension is in the best interest of the government, prices included in the decision. Joel: FAR 17.207 does not require the CO to "evaluate whether the extension is in the best interest of the government." FAR 17.207( c)(3) requires that the CO determine whether "the exercise of the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government's need, price and other factors considered." FAR 17.207(f) requires the CO to determine whether the option was "evaluated as part of the initial competition...." Emphasis added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Joel: FAR 17.207 does not require the CO to "evaluate whether the extension is in the best interest of the government." FAR 17.207( c)(3) requires that the CO determine whether "the exercise of the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government's need, price and other factors considered." FAR 17.207(f) requires the CO to determine whether the option was "evaluated as part of the initial competition...." Emphasis added. Vern, I agree with your first two statements. However, I don't think that the last test that you mentioned under (f) above in bold, italics applies here "(f) Before exercising an option, the contracting officer shall make a written determination for the contract file that exercise is in accordance with the terms of the option, the requirements of this section, and Part 6..." Then: "...To satisfy requirements of Part 6 regarding full and open competition, the option must have been evaluated as part of the initial competition and be exercisable at an amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the terms of the basic contract, e.g. -- The contract action was taken as an exception to full and open competition under Part 6 and there was no competition. Even if it did apply, let's consider what would have been evaluated under a sole source negotiated contract action. The option to extend performance period would presumably be at the existing price(s). The KO initially was required to determine, through an evaluation using various analyses, that the price(s) was fair and reasonable. Therefore, the -8 option price must have been evaluated as part of the original negotiation for the contract. The key to the sticking point seems to me to be whether or not the J&A for an exception to competition limited the scope of the services to not exceed 12 months. If so, then there presumably would have to be justification and approval for another exception to full and open competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Joel, you must be bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts