Does having the SCA apply mean that everything about your contract is now services based? that instead of a construction contract format, etc., just because SCA applies your contract is now a services contract from start to finish - performance based, etc.? It would be extremely difficult to have the CORs do construction or the construction inspectors to COR work. Do you remove all part 36 requirements on a SCA demo project?
The decision on whether this should be considered a services contract or a construction contract is one that is made during Acquisition Planning and Market Research. Your comment "demolition with no known follow on construction" is important. That phrase gives the Project Officer and Contracting Officer latitude in determining what approach best meets the Gov't needs. It sounds like the research done has followed the guidance found in FAR Part 2.101, 22.401, 22.502 and 37.301 as well as AFI 65-601 and 32-1032. In this case it appears CE and Contracting have decided that the SCA applies rather than DBA and therefore FAR Part 37 rather than FAR Part 36 is the guidance to follow and the contract is considered to be a Services contract. Do I have that right?
Open full Question Details
One tenet of government contracting is to be consistent. Therefore, if the organization and contracting officer have decided it makes more sense to consider this project a services effort rather than a construction effort, then what the individual who monitors contract performance is called should also be consistent with that decision; in this case the individual should be called a “COR”. There is nothing prohibiting a requiring activity from assigning a construction inspector to monitor a demolition project just because it’s now a contract for services. There’s a good chance a construction inspector already meets much of the training requirements identified in AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d).