Search WWW Search wifcon.com

To Contents

Developing an A/E Design Build IDIQ?
By Pam Komer on Monday, October 02, 2000 - 03:22 pm:

I'm developing an A/E Design Build IDIQ? Has anyone already created such a monster? Any ideas or suggestions?

By Joel Hoffman on Monday, October 02, 2000 - 04:35 pm:

Pam - there are several variations of construction ID/IQ's with ancilary design capabilities being used by the Corps of Engineers. They range from region-wide single awards and multiple awards to localized single awards. They are structured as construction ID/IQ's with optional ancillary design services.

It is important to note that task orders must be issued for an end result of a construction product. Contracts with Design-only task orders violate the Brooks Act selection procedure requirements for A-E services. You may E-mail me for some points of contact to check out various types in use.

If you are contemplating an "A-E contract for design-build", I'd recommend against it. Design-build is considered a construction contract with ancillary design services, not the other way around. Happy Sails! Joel

By Pamela Komer on Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 12:39 pm:

Joel, I'm interested in hearing how the Corps of Engineers has worked with the multiple award to localized single awards with regards to construction IDIQ with optional ancillary design capabilities. Thanks

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 09:32 am:

Pam, I E-mailed you some sources of information, concerning ID/IQ's for construction with design support capability. I personally believe that contracts limited to localized installations make more sense. The concept was to have a contractor who could be responsive both in cost and time to meet urgent needs for small task orders. The successful offeror would hopefully have solid relations with local design firms and subcontractors, suppliers, etc. Hopefully, the prospect of award of the options and maximizing the annual task order $ award would pressure the contractor into reasonably pricing task orders. Localized contracts offer opportunities for more small business, local contractors.

The advantage of Region-wide or nation-wide ID/IQ's is response time and savings in costs and time otherwise necessary to acquire contracts all over the nation. However, Region-wide or nation-wide ID/IQ's tend to favor large business and involve high overhead costs for small projects, scattered over the country.

The theoretical advantage of MATOC's over single award contracts is "competition" for task orders, reducing the need to negotiate prices with a single contractor. "Adequate" price competition eliminates the need for cost or pricing data, cost analysis, detailed negotiations, paperwork, etc.

However, I believe this is a hollow expectation, as all the work is transferred to the competing offerors, who have to do duplicate proposal preparation work for the chance they will win the task order. It doesn't take many losses for a contractor to lose interest. If the Government is willing to compensate the losing offeror for the cost of its proposal efforts, that might help. I wouldn't be surprised if the multiple award contractors don't quickly learn how to play the game to share the work, either. When I went on active duty in the Air Force, in 1971, I couldn't figure out how the contractors would constantly subcontract 100% of the work out to the losing bidders. Was the Base Contracting Office looking the other way or just plain stupid?

I'd be interested in folks sharing their recent experiences with mutiple award task order contracts, from the Contractor's, the User's or the Government's perspective. How about it, some of you Anonymous's? Happy Sails! Joel