Does a contractor requesting contract termination due to their ability to complete the contract constitute a contract default and unlocks expired funds from that contract to be used towards the replacement contract? Additionally, if the replacement contract, not exceeding the scope of the original contract comes in higher than the funds received, would that constitute an in-scope upward adjustment to receive additional funding?
This is regarding a facilities contract for construction type work. The contractor who won the contract is having difficulty manging their subcontractors and is requesting termination of the contract. Approx. 30% of the funding remains and approximately half the work has been completed. The original funds on the contract are expired funds. Per AFMAN 65-605 7.3.1.1.8, there is a set of criteria outlining when expired funds can be used for a replacement contract. Would the contractors request for termination be considered a default? If so, if the replacement contract, while in scope, came in higher than the remaining funds to complete the work, would that be the same as a regular UOA process to secure additional funding?