Proposal submittal

I presume that you are talking about a sole source contract extension.

The CO should not ask for a certificate of current cost or pricing data with submission of a proposal. The certificate is supposed to be submitted after agreement on price. See FAR 15.406-2(a), which says that the contractor should sign "as close as practicable to the date when price negotiations were concluded and the contract price was agreed to." Also, you said that the CO wants you to certify your "prices." Did he or she say that literally? "Prices"? Contractors don't certify prices under TINA. They certify cost or pricing data, which are not the same thing. Did you misstate what the CO said?

As for a contract for "operatios, support and sustainment effort" being a service contract -- of course it's a service contract. What the heck else do you think it would be? A supply contract? A construction contract?

AAC,

To add to what Vern said, I would expect your proposal to conform to the format and requirements of Table 15-2, found in FAR 15.408. The Table is entitled "Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals when Cost or Pricing Data are Required". If your proposal reasonably conforms to the requirements of the Table (and to any other proposal instructions you received) then you and your CO should be ready to negotiate a price, upon which you would execute a CCPD.

As a nit, I think Vern mistyped the FAR citation because I cannot find the quoted language at 15.406-2(a). However, at 15.403-4( I found the following:

When cost or pricing data are required, the contracting officer shall require the contractor or prospective contractor to submit to the contracting officer (and to have any subcontractor or prospective subcontractor submit to the prime contractor or appropriate subcontractor tier) the following in support of any proposal:

(1) The cost or pricing data.

(2) A certificate of current cost or pricing data, in the format specified in 15.406-2, certifying that to the best of its knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data were accurate, complete, and current as of the date of agreement on price or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon between the parties that is as close as practicable to the date of agreement on price.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for your inputs. Points well taken.

As a nit, I think Vern mistyped the FAR citation because I cannot find the quoted language at 15.406-2(a).

Look at the three-asterisk note for "Date of execution" at the end of the certificate language.

AAC,

As a nit, I think Vern mistyped the FAR citation because I cannot find the quoted language at 15.406-2(a). However, at 15.403-4( I found the following:

Hope this helps.

If you read more carefully, you'll find Vern's cited language in the third ("***") footnote of the actual Certificate that is set forth in full text in FAR 15.406-2(a), just as Vern said.

Vern and Navy --

I sit corrected, which is the usual state of affairs for me when quoting FAR with Vern.

Please accept my apologies, no offense meant.

H2H

Since we are waiting for clarification on the certifying prices terminology, I would also like to get clarification on whether we are talking about an extension of a current contract that is about to expire, an exercise of an option under a current contract period that is about to expire (priced or unpriced), or a separate stand alone follow-on contract to the original contract. I think if we are talking about an extension of an original contract it may not be necessary to certify at all.

Since we are waiting for clarification on the certifying prices terminology, I would also like to get clarification on whether we are talking about an extension of a current contract that is about to expire, an exercise of an option under a current contract period that is about to expire (priced or unpriced), or a separate stand alone follow-on contract to the original contract. I think if we are talking about an extension of an original contract it may not be necessary to certify at all.

The poster described it as follows: "follow-on one year extension to an existing contract that will expire at the end of the year."

Door Number 3?

No extension.

"follow-on one year contract to an existing contract that will expire at the end of the year."

or Door Number 1?

no follow-on

"one year extension to an existing contract that will expire at the end of the year."

can extensions be for a year?

Whynot,

For purposes of applying TINA, what difference does it make if the contract action is a contract modification extending the period of performance (not an option) for one-year or a new one-year contract?

Do you think an extension under 52.217-8 requires a certification? I don't.

FAR 52.217-8 is an option clause. Note the use of "(not an option)" in my question.

You referred to three possible scenarios:

1. an extension of a current contract that is about to expire,

2. an exercise of an option under a current contract period that is about to expire (priced or unpriced),

3. a separate stand alone follow-on contract to the original contract.

When applying TINA, what's the difference between scenarios 1 and 3?

That's pretty wacky.

What clause can you use to extend a contract that isn't an option clause that would require C&P?

Ok, now you are confusing me. You wrote:

I would also like to get clarification on whether we are talking about [1] an extension of a current contract that is about to expire, [2] an exercise of an option under a current contract period that is about to expire (priced or unpriced), or [3] a separate stand alone follow-on contract to the original contract.

What is the difference between [1] and [2]? Does [1] refer to the exercise of an option pursuant to FAR 52.217-8 and [2] refer to the exercise of an option pursuant to another option clause? Please clarify.

For purposes of TINA under a Fixed priced contract - scenario 1 and 2 are the same. That was my point.

You, got me thinking, is there a way to extend a contract by not using an Option clause? I don't think so. But maybe you have a way. If so your way may indeed require C&P data. Please show us the way.

How do you extend a fixed price service contract for one year without an option clause?

You can negotiate a sole source extension to the contract extending the period of performance. Both parties agree on the price and terms and conditions and do a supplemental agreement. This is instead of doing a new contract.

That works.

But if it is an extension through a supplemental agreement then the rules are whatever the parties choose to agree upon, and C&P data may or may not be agreed to. And probably not agreed to if the extension period rates are the same as the current expiring year rates.

Are you comfortable doing an extension without an option clause but only with a supplemental agreement?

But if it is an extension through a supplemental agreement then the rules are whatever the parties choose to agree upon, and C&P data may or may not be agreed to.

Huh? Are you trying to say that a contractor may not agree to submit cost or pricing data when negotiating such a modification?

Yes.

If a vendor were so inclined (preferred not to give C&P data) what would compel them to agree to provide it? What is the CO going to do - not award the extension?

With a little effort the CO may figure out that they have enough information to determine prices are fair and reasonable without C&P data.

If a vendor were so inclined (preferred not to give C&P data) what would compel them to agree to provide it?

The possibility of the Government deciding not to extend the contract.

What is the CO going to do - not award the extension?

That would be an option.

With a little effort the CO may figure out that they have enough information to determine prices are fair and reasonable without C&P data.

So what if they do? What exception to cost or pricing data requirements would apply?

Any applicable exception will do - the first one looks good. Not too hard to compare prices to other prices on other contracts that were properly competed. Or the CO can go get a waiver and explain why through their poor planning that they have to get a rush sole source extension rather than having done a proper follow-on acqusition and through their even worse execution why their contract does not have the proper extension option clauses.

My point is that standard and routine extensions (options) are likely not to require C&P data. We do not know from the original poster whether this is an extension or a follow-on contract.

This is a follow on 1 year extension to an existing contact. The POP will expire by end of year. There was no option to extend the existing contract out for a year. I inherited this contract so I would have brought this issue up to the CO had I been here at the beginning. The one year extension is being used to cover performance until we can get a the next follow-on contract in place which will have additional scope added to it.

Thanks.

Is the extension a modification to your existing contract (will have the same contract number) or is the extension a one year bridge contract with its own contract number?

Forget TINA, how does a modification to extend an expiring fixed price service contract without an option clause for one year not trigger CICA?

To be frank, I still do not know what AAC means by a follow on one year extension.

Forget TINA, how does a modification to extend an expiring fixed price service contract without an option clause for one year not trigger CICA?

To be frank, I still do not know what AAC means by a follow on one year extension.

They want to keep the same contractor for an additional year until they can get a the next follow-on contract in place. The next contract will have more scope than the existing contract.

But if it is an extension through a supplemental agreement then the rules are whatever the parties choose to agree upon, and C&P data may or may not be agreed to. And probably not agreed to if the extension period rates are the same as the current expiring year rates.

That's dumb. Read the FAR.

In response to my question Formerfed said:

"[Without an option clause] you can negotiate a sole source extension to a [fixed priced service] contract extending the period of performance [for one year]. Both parties agree on the price and terms and conditions and do a supplemental agreement. This is instead of doing a new contract."

What's wrong with Formerfed's answer? And, isn't it possible to agree on price without C&P data?

What's wrong with Formerfed's answer?

Nothing.

And, isn't it possible to agree on price without C&P data?

Yes. What's your point?

I just finished reading the FAR as instructed. I am trying to figure out what part of my statement that Vern quoted is dumb or dumber.

Looks like doing a supplemental agreement for an extension - is not dumb per Formerfed.

Looks like both parties agreeing on the price and terms and conditions - is not dumb per Formerfed

Looks like it is possible to agree on price without C&P data - is not dumb concurred by DON.

Whynot,

This is what you wrote:

But if it is an extension through a supplemental agreement then the rules are whatever the parties choose to agree upon, and C&P data may or may not be agreed to.

This makes it seem that, as long as the parties agreed, they could ignore the requirements for cost or pricing data (or the requirements of any other rule) even if they applied. Did you mean that?

No.

I wanted to express that a supplemental agreement in this instance is fully bilateral, it deals with work beyond the normal expiration of the contract, there are no operational change order or termination clauses that can compel the contractor to agree to the supplemental agreement. The parties can mutually choose to accept whatever prices and terms they agree to.

If the CO feels that this modification requires C&P and no exception applies, or does not want to seek a waiver, then the CO should not sign the supplemental agreement without C&P. No arguement. My point is that nothing is compelling the contractor to provide C&P other than the CO not awarding the work to the contractor. There is no contractual obligation. There might be a business reason but that is not what we are talking about.

Conversely, nothing is compelling the CO to sign the supplemental agreement with contractor terms that the CO does not like - other than having the work interrupted and some very unhappy customers.