Seeking2Award

Recent posts

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Vern Edwards said: > > > P.S. See also _Administration of Government Contracts_, 5th ed., pp. 10 - 12, Protection of Public Interest, Consideration Required. > > > > Tell the stupid contractor t

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Vern Edwards said: > > > Emphasis added. > > > > See "Consideration for Time Extensions: Now You See It Now You Don't, _The Nash & Cibinic Report_ (September 1990): > > > > That's the answer to

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Don Mansfield said: > > > [@Seeking2Award](/u/seeking2award) > > > > Are you familiar with the concept of forbearance? > > > > [/threads/965-forbearance-vs-change-order](/threads/965-forbearanc

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > C Culham said: > > > Yep, but I guess we do not get a "A" for effort.   Your wealth of recall and knowledge is a leg up, yet it is frustrating when, especially when not in the Beginners Forum,  r

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Retreadfed said: > > > What is not in the best interest of the government? "I am aware of FAR 50.103-2(a), however, is there something that can be cited when arguing in support of the government

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Don Mansfield said: > > > You didn't say that. It was from the guidance you quoted. Thanks for the clarification.

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Don Mansfield said: > > > I think that's an overstatement. Some modifications require consideration, some don't. A lot of modifications that adjust contract terms pursuant to a clause don't requi

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Jamaal Valentine said: > > > This was the inquiry I responded to. I thought it was responsive. Others providing similar responses confirms my thinking. Nonetheless, I think I’ve reached my useful

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > C Culham said: > > > Bluntly.  What?  You asked for "FAR References" that supported that the concept was ingrained in FAR.   It seems your want a magic bullet and you are not goingto get one in m

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Retreadfed said: > > > For a contract clause, see FAR 52.246-2(h). Thanks for this reference.

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Retreadfed said: > > > Check out a treatise on contracting such as Corbin or Williston.  That should give you ample authority to support that proposition. I appreciate the information!

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Jamaal Valentine said: > > > Sure, see FAR 42.202-2(a)(10). Now, you could easily use the FAR search function at [acquisition.gov](https://www.acquisition.gov/search/advanced?keys=&page=0&sort_by

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > C Culham said: > > > How about FAR 45.301 and 3.705(e).   I will not go further other than to remind you that you can easily search the FAR these days. FAR 45.301 is irrelevant to my inquiry as

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Jamaal Valentine said: > > > It shouldn’t be hard to verify that parties that enter into a contract are generally entitled to change it (e.g., mutual agreement). FAR 43.103(a)(3); See also, 2023

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > joel hoffman said: > > > @Seeking2Award, what didn’t you understand in reading this earlier thread at  > > > > You said that the schedule extension would not benefit the government. This implies

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > Don Mansfield said: > > > This one, too... Thank you for this! It was really helpful. I was hoping for a FAR reference or a specific statute... for instance the Department of State has (or had)

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > C Culham said: > > > Have read through this thread? I have. It did not answer my specific question, which is why I posted this.

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  > > joel hoffman said: > > > Is this a service contract? It is a supplies contract. Thanks for the inquiry.

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago

• Justification for Consideration

  I'm in search of documented authority (U.S.C. / FAR etc.) that would support the below statement: "As a general rule, a CO does not need a contract clause in order to grant a request for a "no cost e

  in Contract Administration · 2y ago