By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 – 7:10 AM: Eric: A Few Things: 1. The October 83 issue of SF30 probably mentions FAR because the FAR was published on the Federal Register in September 1983, although it did not go into effect until April 1984. The GSA may have anticipated the effective date. 2. I remember that the requirement for a reference to authority dates back at least to the early 1970s. 3. Although all the additional agreements were considered mods outside the scope where you worked, this was by no means common across government. Where I worked in the 70s, an additional agreement could be either a mod in the scope or an out-of-scope mod (New Work). (2) Include in the Addendum a publication similar to the following: By Anon on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 – 14:09: Joel, it`s on the way, I hope it`s readable. Vern, I agree with you. But question, many years ago, someone already made the comment that the authority for a mod should not quote parts FAR 1 to 51, but the authority had to come from a FAR Part 52 quote (well, in fact, the ASPR, father of DAR). Later, I was converted to “mutual agreement of the parties” (about the third year of my career after the AFIT Contract Law course).
By Mike Wolff on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 – 8:55 am: Joel asked, “Do you think a knockout can change a contract for a mutually beneficial reason?” My answer is, “Yes, as long as it is under the treaty.” If it does not fall within the scope of the Treaty, it may be necessary to provide a justification other than full and open competition. I like Linda`s use of FAR 1.102(d), which states in part that “if a particular strategy, practice, policy or process is in the best interest of the government and is not dealt with in the FAR or is prohibited by law (law or jurisdiction), implementing regulation or other regulation, the strategy, the practice, policy or procedure is an authorized exercise of authority.” Since far, something else I know, limits when additional agreements can be used (as long as they are used for legal purposes, etc.), why do people think that a particular FAR clause should be called “authority”. Mike By anoncon on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 – 20:02: So when everything is said and done, based on Vern`s original post, I will stick to what I said “Common Law” reference by anonymous8 on Monday the 10th. June 2002 – 07:41 AM: I have used mutual agreement as an authority and I know many others who have done so too. .