Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

C Culham

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About C Culham

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

13,409 profile views
  1. PD - Your thinking regarding 52.212-1 and "late" is sound but as noted by others your research now needs to move to other facts. Such as- Can the agency amend the RFQ casualy as they did which negates the view of late? Do you have standing to protest now to GAO based on the timeliness standard for such protests? These are primary matters now if you are still contemplating a protest to GAO. And as an aside should you decide to protest I hope you use terms like RFQ, quote, quotes, etc. Exacting terms related to your specific situation will matter.
  2. You may find this helpful as well.......... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiz7JL4kq3iAhWVoFsKHeOxAiMQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gsa.gov%2Fcdnstatic%2FIndustry_Day_2014_CANCELLATIONS_final.pptx&usg=AOvVaw0fdRFDf811N4VgrZ39Ewcb
  3. This has been an intriguing puzzle. Putting all the pieces together provides the following. FAR part 6 provides that A-E contracting (Brooks Act) is a competitive procedure. (FAR 6.102(d)(1)) FAR part 6 provides that FAR part 6 does not apply to orders placed under IDIQ contracts when the contract was entered into pursuant to FAR 6.1 as well as orders placed against task and delivery orders entered into pursuant to FAR 16.5. (FAR 6.001(e) & (f)) FAR part 16.505 provides that orders are to describe all services to be performed so the full price or cost of the work can be established when the order is issued. FAR part 17 does not apply to A-E contracts but does not preclude the use of options in A-E contracts. (FAR 17.2) Note here that the considerations of exercise of options at FAR 17.207 provide that requirements of FAR part 6 should be considered and satisfied when it comes to options but as already noted FAR part 6 provides that it does not apply to task orders. FAR subpart 36.6 provides that its processes can be used with regard to FAR subpart 16.505. (36.600) It is generally held and supported in part by determinations that a task order is a “contract”. http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/2044-dar-council-interprets-contract-to-include-task-and-delivery-orders/ Conclusion – The award of multiple award IDIQ contracts implied in this thread were accomplished using a competitive procedure and as such task orders, which are determined to be contacts in and of themselves, under the IDIQ contacts are not subject to competition requirements of FAR part 6. FAR part 16.5 provides that task orders are to be priced but does not provided the imperative that they cannot include an option, priced or un-priced, and options are not precluded in an A-E contract (task order). The GAO document that is indicated as the lynch pin for the discussion in this thread deals specifically with standalone “umbrella” contracts and provides no reference to task orders and more specifically task orders under multiple award IDIQ contracts for A-E services. Considering the specifics of all the facts an option can be used in a task order for A-E services and the option is not subject to FAR part 6 competition requirements. An un-priced option is not precluded and is not subject to any limitations, procedures, or processes of FAR part 6 and therefore not FAR 17. The unpriced option is subject only to limitations, procedures or processes stated in the task order and/or the parent IDIQ contract.
  4. A couple of references that might help.... 13 CFR § 121.404 FAR 19.301 especially at FAR 19.301-2(e)
  5. Is not the situation being looked at from the wrong perspective? Task order award and subsequent task order changes are subject to the parameters of the parent IDIQ. FAR references to part 17 regarding options is misplaced in my view. As the OP's facts are peeled away the real fact is the FAR does not apply to the placement of an option in a task order, the parent IDIQ does and what it allows or does not allow. Answering the OP's questions piecemeal without seeing the underlying parent IDIQ is a very slippery slope. But as others have ventured out so will I. Fact - OP wants to do un-priced options and/or un-priced anticipated phases on a task order under an IDIQ contract. If the parent contract and the task order is silent on how this can be approached then the OP could wing it but may cause another holder of the MAC to take the matter to the agency ombudsman as an issue related to fair opportunity. If the parent contract and/or the task order addresses the ability for un-priced options or phases so much the better. If the former I would believe that the ombudsman would look to issues of scope etc. to address whether a contractor received fair opportunity consideration for the un-priced option or phase and might apply principles of competition but I do not believe they would apply. The four corners of the contract apply. Bottomline it is not a question about "legal" it is a question about what is contractually allowed with regard to un-priced options and/or phases as to whether they are allowed by the parent IDIQ contract fair opportunity ordering terms and conditions or the task order itself.
  6. Wait! Is not there a difference between synopsis of award and public announcement (FAR 5.303)? If yes a FMS of $4M or more for non DoD agencies is to be publically announced is it not?
  7. Admitting that I have not read in detail the case citations provided I did find this aged discussion on WIFCON to be an interesting read as to BigBird's intention with regard to the option exercise. http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum28.htm
  8. Well I have been unavailable for a few days but as caught up and looked at comments directed at me my sole conclusion is this.... I am proposing to the administrator that the Forum purpose be restated as not a site for fair exchange but rather a site that invites baiting. Fruitful dialog with references and promises made and met is not necessary. Thank you!
  9. 2014 Contract Attorneys Deskbook, Chapter 21 Contract Changes….. “Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) – A contractor request (not a demand – see “claim” below) that the contracting officer adjust the contract price to provide an equitable (i.e. “fair and reasonable”) increase in contract price based on a change to contract requirements. REAs are handled under the contract’s Changes Clause.” Your definition and meaning of "stand-alone contract" PLEASE?
  10. I was only willing because as provided by DFAR's, a FAR supplement it is stated - "PGI 204.7103-2 Numbering procedures. (See DFARS 204.7103-2, DFARS/PGI view) (a) Contract line items shall consist of four numeric digits 0001 through 9999. Do not use numbers beyond 9999. Within a given contract, the item numbers shall be sequential but need not be consecutive." I will give you the argument regarding "stand-alone" as a TO is not independent of the parent IDIQ, I am not sure about a TO not being unique. No task order, no contract for a specific need under a IDIQ unless the unique TO is issued as an IDIQ orders nothing in and of itself. A TO does get a unique number from that of the parent IDIQ. I am not independent of my parents DNA but I am unique in many other ways! I will leave it at that.
  11. Yes, that's my read. Using as implied by the OP is sequential but not consecutive which is allowed by the FAR supplements. What seems unorthodox to me is not creating new CLINS all together because my read of CLIN usage suggests a CLIN is to represent something unique and task order needs are unique from the parent IDIQ, but that is just me. Not necessarily. Consider by example the ability to change terms and conditions in a GSA-FSS which is a variant of a IDIQ. Like GSA-FSS agencies do allow within there own IDIQ's the addition or deletion of the parent terms and conditions to a specific task order. So in essence they become stand-alone. REF - FAR subpart 4.10 and agency supplements to same.
  12. Yes it would be nice if the OP returned to clarify but with regard to FAR 37 and FAR 22 Neil Roberts provided a link to a previous lengthy discussion that addresses same, just sayn.
  13. When I am scratching my head I use the Product Service Codes to level my thinking. Seems in this case that service codes in the D3 arena fit better than the 70 in the product codes.
  14. Question - Can a FAR part 13 BPA be used to acquire A&E Services? Scenario - Agency has utilized multiple award IDIQs to acquire A&E services. Selection and award of task orders under the IDIQs follow FAR part 36.6/Brooks Act procedures. Agency is now considering use of multiple BPAs in lieu of using IDIQs. Previous TO awards were both below and above $250k and it is expected calls under the proposed BPA approach will be similar. I have researched and have found only one example of an agency using a BPA in this manner. I have also done general research including review as best as possible of GAO protests. After a read and re-read of FAR 36.6 I feel use of a BPA is inconsistent with the FAR/Brooks Act as a call against a BPA is not a negotiated procurement in the sense as used in FAR 36.6 and FAR part 15. Additionally use of a BPA for needs above $250k suggests that an A&E service is a commercial item and I note that that there are those that feel that A&E is not inclusive of the FAR definition of a commercial item. References to support any response to the question would be appreciated.
  15. Yep I know but it is the connection that the sole source is authorized by statute. Is an advance decision request to GAO a way to clear this up?
  • Create New...