← Back to overall timeline
Increment 1913 Sep 2027Command PostDecision

SIPR room possession and wall damage

After the Contracting Officer authorizes early possession of the Command Post SIPR room, a scratched wall forces trainees to investigate causation and distinguish possession from contractual acceptance.

The situation, for each audience

Keep the trainer context out of trainee packets and read-aloud materials.

Trainee facing · Read aloud

Current situation

Diamond Dogs Civil Works, LLC is well into the Shadow Moses Command Post whole-building renewal. Colonel Campbell needed the operational SIPR room early for Sneaking Mission briefings, so the Contracting Officer authorized Government possession and use of that room before completion of the rest of the building.

Before possession, the Contracting Officer furnished Diamond Dogs a room-specific remaining-work list: replace two ceiling labels, touch up paint beside the secure door, and complete final controls labeling. The list did not identify repair of the broad wall surface as remaining work. Several days after Command Post personnel began using the room, they reported a large horizontal scratch across that newly finished wall.

Diamond Dogs states that it is not responsible for damage resulting from Government possession or use. The contract nevertheless requires completed wall surfaces to be unmarred and free of visible scratches. Determine what facts and records must be established before deciding who is responsible and whether correction remains contract work.

Trainer only · Do not issue

Facilitator context

Release at Increment 19 after the [G]/[H] exterior decision and after the Contracting Officer has already authorized early possession of the SIPR room. Use [O] after either Command Post response. Do not turn the event back into a question about whether authorization was required or obtained.

The contractor's opening statement is legally plausible but factually incomplete. FAR 52.236-11(b) relieves Diamond Dogs only for loss or damage resulting from Government possession or use. A strong team first investigates causation. O-07 then shows that the scratch was already present immediately before possession; if it instead showed an undamaged wall, responsibility would reverse.

After O-07, roleplay Diamond Dogs' fallback claim that possession, continued use, and the omission from the remaining-work list amount to acceptance. FAR 52.236-11(a) closes both asserted loopholes: an omitted item remains the contractor's responsibility under the contract, and Government possession or use is not acceptance. The modeled file contains no separate acceptance record; O-01 documents possession only. FAR 52.246-12 supports correction without charge unless the Government affirmatively accepts the nonconforming finish with an appropriate price adjustment.

Require Diamond Dogs to repair the pre-possession scratch as contract work. Keep that result separate from any proven delay or additional expense caused by Government possession, which FAR 52.236-11(b) addresses through a written equitable adjustment in price or completion time. State all consequences within [O]; do not create [OG] or [OB].

Trainer clue bank

Regulatory signposts

4 sources

Direct trainees to a citation when they need a narrower clue. Have them apply the contract’s actual clauses, current thresholds, local policy, and the facts before treating any signpost as dispositive.

Give initially

5 records

These establish the decision without answering the factual questions trainees should identify.

O-01

Use and Possession authorization and remaining-work list

Shows that the Contracting Officer authorized early use of the identified SIPR room and listed three remaining items, none involving the broad wall surface where the scratch is later reported.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
O-02

Post-possession wall-condition report

Documents the large horizontal scratch observed several days after Command Post personnel began using the room without establishing when or by whom it was caused.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
O-03

Contractor initial responsibility response

States Diamond Dogs' position that it is not responsible for damage resulting from Government possession or use, leaving causation for the acquisition team to investigate.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
O-04

Architectural finish requirement extract

Requires completed SIPR room wall surfaces to be uniform, unmarred, and free of visible scratches, gouges, and other finish defects.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
O-05

SIPR room plan and possession boundary

Identifies the room and associated access area placed into Government use while the remainder of the Command Post renovation continues.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy

Give only after trainee prompting

2 records

Use the prompt as a release gate; close-enough trainee questions should count when they seek the same underlying fact.

Prompt / triggerHandoutExercise purpose
PromptReview the contract clauses governing early use, damage responsibility, inspection, correction, and acceptance
HandoutO-06
FAR 52.236-11 and FAR 52.246-12 extracts
Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
PurposeProvides the controlling language without deciding when the wall was scratched or whether this room was separately accepted.
PromptAsk when the scratch occurred, request the pre-possession inspection, or seek photographs from before Government use
HandoutO-07
Pre-possession condition record and photograph
Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy
PurposeShows the same scratch clearly visible immediately before the Government took possession of the SIPR room.

What a strong analysis should surface

  1. Do not assign responsibility from the timing of discovery alone. FAR 52.236-11(b) relieves the contractor only for loss or damage resulting from Government possession or use, so the acquisition team must first determine whether the scratch existed before or arose after possession.
  2. O-07 establishes that the scratch was present immediately before Government use. The modeled damage therefore did not result from Government possession, even though the contractor's initial proposition would have been correct under the opposite factual finding.
  3. FAR 52.236-11(a) required the Contracting Officer to furnish a list of remaining or corrective work before possession, but expressly states that failure to list an item does not relieve the contractor from complying with the contract. Omission of the scratch from O-01 does not waive O-04's finish requirement.
  4. Government possession or use is not acceptance. The task-order file contains no separate acceptance of Room 1-126; O-01 records possession only. FAR 52.246-12 requires correction of nonconforming work without charge unless the Government affirmatively accepts it with an appropriate contract-price adjustment.
  5. Keep two allocations distinct: Diamond Dogs must correct this pre-possession defect, while any delay or additional expense actually caused by Government possession is evaluated separately for a written equitable adjustment in contract price or completion time under FAR 52.236-11(b).

Available response options

2 options

Offer options in plain language and accept equivalent trainee analysis. Do not reveal the assessment labels. Use each availability gate before accepting a contextual response, and use the trainer line to redirect a superfluous answer immediately.

How to run this node: Offer only these two dispositions. The Contracting Officer has already authorized possession, so do not ask trainees whether early use was permissible. A response that orders repair without first investigating when the scratch occurred is incomplete; ask, 'What fact determines whether this damage resulted from Government use?' Release O-06 when trainees ask for the governing clauses and O-07 when they seek the pre-possession condition evidence. If they test Diamond Dogs' later acceptance argument, state that the file contains no separate acceptance record and O-01 documents possession only.

O1Strong

Investigate when the wall was scratched and whether the SIPR room was separately accepted before assigning responsibility.

Available when
Initially available; fully supported after trainees request and apply O-06 and O-07
Trainer line
O-07 shows the scratch existed before Government possession, so it did not result from Government use. O-01's omission does not relieve Diamond Dogs from the contract's finish requirement. The file contains no separate acceptance, and O-01 records possession only. Under FAR 52.236-11 and FAR 52.246-12, require correction without charge while evaluating any separately proven possession-caused delay or additional expense on its own facts.
Leads next
Diamond Dogs repairs the pre-possession wall defect as contract work, Sneaking Mission briefings continue in the occupied room, and [O] closes without another event.
O2Weak

Treat Government possession and the omitted wall item as acceptance of the room's condition, making the Government responsible for the scratch.

Available when
Initially available
Trainer line
This combines two true facts into a false conclusion. Diamond Dogs would be relieved for damage resulting from Government use, and the scratch was omitted from the remaining-work list; however, O-07 shows the damage predated possession. FAR 52.236-11 expressly says both that omission does not relieve contract compliance and that possession or use is not acceptance.
Leads next
The Government improperly absorbs the repair or leaves a known finish defect in place. Contract review later identifies the unsupported waiver of the finish requirement; the Contracting Officer must restore the correct allocation and address any avoidable cost or closeout delay within [O].