I believe in using the definition for commodity as: a physical good that can be bought and sold. Time, can be bought and sold, but I believe that creates too much gray area. In that sense, there should be no need for a 'service' contract. Time would be the commodity to be sold, thus making a commodity a service or service a commodity - see the discrepancy?
Now the question: So, based on all the usages of 'commodity' within the FAR, what is the difference between a service and commodity contract in actual application? This question doesn't serve the purpose to point out that the FAR is contradictory in nature. We all know that already. I truly want to know what the top level contracting officials think or perceive, to more effectively contract.
I can appreciate the confusion that is sometimes attendant with using the FAR and applying definitions to your day-to-day practice. Unfortunately, given the broad nature of your question I can only refer you to the definitions that are provided in the FAR. However, you may find it beneficial to peruse federal professional development sources such as the Defense AT&L Journal, the Defense Acquisition Research Journal, non-federal publications from sources such as the National Contract Management Association, and solicit insights from members of your own organization. After all, interpretation of a regulation is mostly dependent upon the specific context and the practices adopted by a particular organization.
Open full Question Details