Extending Option timeframe to increase quantities

Hi. I have a question concerning a GSA order for hardware. The CLIN structure is set up based on five years of requirements identified as base CLINs with option CLINs for each fiscal year. The order includes clause 52.217-7 "Option for Increased Quantity?Separately Priced Line Item" which provides a number of days given to exercise the next set of option CLINs. The customer has indicated there is no need to exercise the next fiscal years requirements, but there is still a need for the following year.

My question is: Is it possible to extend out the validity time to exercise the next Option CLINs for a whole year to keep the contract alive? Would I have to limit the contract to five years if the modifying the timeframe carries the contract out beyond the five year limit for a supply-type contract as stated in FAR 17.204(e)?

Thanks.

Does your order include this clause: "52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)"?

Does your order include this clause: "52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)"?

No. Unfortunately. If it's possible to do a timeframe extension, couldn't I also add 52.217-9 at the same time?

Hi. I have a question concerning a GSA order for hardware. The CLIN structure is set up based on five years of requirements identified as base CLINs with option CLINs for each fiscal year. The order includes clause 52.217-7 "Option for Increased Quantity?Separately Priced Line Item" which provides a number of days given to exercise the next set of option CLINs. The customer has indicated there is no need to exercise the next fiscal years requirements, but there is still a need for the following year.

My question is: Is it possible to extend out the validity time to exercise the next Option CLINs for a whole year to keep the contract alive? Would I have to limit the contract to five years if the modifying the timeframe carries the contract out beyond the five year limit for a supply-type contract as stated in FAR 17.204(e)?

Thanks.

In my opinion, modification of the contract to apply the option for increased quantity to the requirements of a later fiscal year would be outside of the scope of the competition and a successfully protestable course of action. The same applies to modification of the contract to add FAR 52.217-9.

No. Unfortunately. If it's possible to do a timeframe extension, couldn't I also add 52.217-9 at the same time?

It is easy to become confused when reading the FAR coverage of options. Some - like 52.217-7 - deal with increased quantities. Others deal with extension of the contract term. Absent 52.217-9, you need to write a J&A to extend the contract. Are you sure that your order did not incorporate the -9 clause by reference? Was it in the solicitation but not picked up when preparing the award of the order?

How is the contract term identified in your order?

It is easy to become confused when reading the FAR coverage of options. Some - like 52.217-7 - deal with increased quantities. Others deal with extension of the contract term. Absent 52.217-9, you need to write a J&A to extend the contract. Are you sure that your order did not incorporate the -9 clause by reference? Was it in the solicitation but not picked up when preparing the award of the order?

How is the contract term identified in your order?

The only contract term identified is a delivery schedule after the items are exercised. My main concern is trying to keep the contract alive, if possible, until the next years requirement, as the customer has indicated there is no current year requirement (although originally planned). The procurement was also sole source.

The only contract term identified is a delivery schedule after the items are exercised. My main concern is trying to keep the contract alive, if possible, until the next years requirement, as the customer has indicated there is no current year requirement (although originally planned). The procurement was also sole source.

Since it's sole source, why the concern? Why not let the order lapse then and write a new order later?

Since it's sole source, why the concern? Why not let the order lapse then and write a new order later?

Thank you, Formerfed. I didn't trust myself to respond to that last post. (Sigh.)