Sign In
  • Question

    By all accounts, I think 52.217-8 is the appropriate clause to have been included and used to continue services under these circumstances. However, it was not included in the bridge. Is there precedence or regulation that allows for a Contracting Officer to execute -9 if there are no option CLINS within the contract? I've read a great article by Vern Edwards on the subject and, from what I gather, IF we exercise the option in this instance, it is not consistent with CICA and, at best, the option would have to be bilateral. This is, of course, assuming it can even be done.


    Since you are accomplishing a J&A under 6.302-1 anyway,  it makes more sense that you award a new contract.  I do not believe you are compliant with FAR 52.217-9 since you never put an option CLIN in your purchase order, nor did you price the extension.  You don’t mention it, but the blanks in the 52.217-9 clause must be completed in the purchase order with an indication that the duration of the contract might extend another 6 months if the option clause is exercised.  Just listing the clause number and name without  filling in the blanks does not give the contractor the notification of the Govt’s intent to extend the contract, the possibly of exercising an option or any specified limitation on the total duration of the contract.  You have not complied with the prescription but even more importantly, you have not developed the scope of the contract to include an extension.   

    I absolutely agree that you have a CICA problem.  Going from under the SAT to over the SAT just adds more complexity to the approval thresholds on the sole source J&A.  My recommendation:  CICA is the law.  Don’t disregard competition rules just to please your customers.  If this is truly a sole-source supplier, the J&A should be easy.  With no options and no agreement on pricing, you cannot make a unilateral request for the extension of the purchase order.  

    Open full Question Details