Out of Scope Modifications

Does anyone know of any governing authority that talks specifically about Out-of-Scope changes. Our customers are wanting to spend additional money on a single award delivery order that was generated from our Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs). NOTE: The delivery orders are issued on a rotational basis. The project is a new visitor center construction. However, the customers are wanting to add a shop building and pad, RV pads and a trail and boardwalk. These items were not in the original specs and drawings and are clearly out of scope. What authority can I show my customers to convince them that these items cannot be added?

There is not a single, clear definition of "Out of Scope". I suggest you read the discussion entitled "Meaning of 'Within the General Scope"' on pages 382 to 396 of The Administration of Government Contracts, Fourth Edition.

Also, see here: /legacy/reg/5786f07d6b0dcb32.html.

Granted that the desired work is out of the general scope of the existing task order, but is within the general scope of the multiple-award contracts.

First approach: Maybe your multiple-award task order contracts themselves will have language describing placement of orders and modification of existing orders. There might be language regarding no-opportunity-to-compete for circumstances when a particular contractor is already on the worksite (to avoid confusion and conflicts).

If not, you might still be able to add the work to the existing task order if you can justify a sole-source action using FAR 16.505( b )( 2 ) as your authority. Or FAR 6.302-1. Or FAR 13.106-1( b ). Or FAR 8.405-6. Well, maybe not 8.405-6 for your case, but I wanted to include it for completeness.

You probably won't find anything that says you cannot add the work in this particular case. Rather, you can look for and you might find something that allows you to do so -- but not finding anything, then you will likely conclude that competition is required.

A counter-question for you: You said you issue task orders on a rotational basis -- but FAR 16.505( b )( 1 ) seems to establish a general rule that every multiple-award contractor have a fair opportunity to compete for each task order over $3,000 -- how do you justify issuing task orders on a rotational basis?

NOTE: The delivery orders are issued on a rotational basis.

I am curious. Do you believe that "rotating orders" complies with the FAR 16.505 ( (1) requirement to provide all contract holders a fair opportunity to be considered for each order?

Does anyone know of any governing authority that talks specifically about Out-of-Scope changes. Our customers are wanting to spend additional money on a single award delivery order that was generated from our Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOCs). NOTE: The delivery orders are issued on a rotational basis. The project is a new visitor center construction. However, the customers are wanting to add a shop building and pad, RV pads and a trail and boardwalk. These items were not in the original specs and drawings and are clearly out of scope. What authority can I show my customers to convince them that these items cannot be added?

See FAR 16.505((1):

( Orders under multiple award contracts?

(1) Fair opportunity.

(i) The contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 issued under multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts, except as provided for in paragraph ((2) of this section.

Work outside the scope of an order is new work. The CO must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for an order of new work.