Which scenario would justify providing Government Furnished Property?

Providing Government Furnished Property (GFP) is typically justified in scenarios where specific assets or resources are needed to support contract performance, particularly when such items would otherwise impede progress or efficiency. Long lead assets are items or materials that require significant time to procure and may be necessary for the execution of a project.

When the government furnishes these types of assets, it directly addresses a critical need that could cause delays if the contractor were responsible for sourcing them. The provision of these assets not only helps ensure that projects remain on schedule but also enhances overall efficiency by preventing potential downtime caused by waiting for essential materials or equipment.

The other scenarios, such as higher contractor efficiency, increased administrative costs, and external funding availability, do not inherently justify the need for GFP. While higher contractor efficiency might suggest a better performance outcome, it does not necessitate the need for government-provided property. Increased administrative costs are a negative outcome associated with contract management and do not support the rationale for allocating GFP. External funding availability might influence budgeting decisions but does not create a requirement for the government to provide specific property necessary for performance. Therefore, the justification for providing Government Furnished Property aligns most closely with the need for long lead assets that ensure project progress and efficiency.