GAO Investigation Concludes Army Extends Services Contract without Proper Authorization Applicable Procurement Regulations
FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services,” allows a Contracting Officer to extend a service contract for up to six months. This clause provides:
52.217-8, OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999) The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option].
The above clause is typically required when there is a need for continued services until the Government awards a new contract. These extended contracts are commonly known as “bridge contracts.”
On January 28, 2016, the General Accounting Office (”GAO”) found that the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal had, on several occasions, extended the duration of contracts beyond their legal limits. Recent GAO reports note that about half of the bridge contracts created by such extensions were for professional management or information technology services. Although bridge contracts are typically short-term, GAO found that some contracts spanned multiple years. The GAO investigation fell short of concluding the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal did this intentionally, but blamed this on inexperienced and overwhelmed project and contracting staff.
Court Tosses CPARS Complaint on Procedural Grounds
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed a contractor’s Complaint, challenging the Air Force’s negative CPARS evaluation. The contractor filed a Complaint seeking an injunction against a negative CPARS evaluation. While the Complaint was styled as a bid protest, the contractor was not challenging a particular award decision. Instead, the contractor argued that the negative CPARS evaluation would have an adverse negative impact on future procurements. The Court rejected this argument and held that it does not have jurisdiction over a challenge to a CPARS evaluation before the agency uses it. Instead, the contractor should have contested the negative CPARS evaluation by filing a request for a Contracting Officer’s final decision under the Contract Disputes Act. ITILITY, LLC v. United States, Court of Federal Claims, No. 15-237C
Faced with a poor CPARS evaluation? If the Government refuses to change its evaluation despite your comments to the CPARS evaluation, file a request for a Contracting Officer’s final decision.
