dcarver

I disagree with your rant. You don't need to do a sole source justification to make a single-award IDIQ contract. I think you misconstrue single award to mean sole source. You can compete an IDIQ contract and make a single award with no sole source justifications. The intent is that for large contracts over $103M that will be using this structure is to have multiple award contracts because you have decided that you will have continuing requirements over the period of the contract for frequent orders. Instead of locking up such a large requirement with one contractor, you are locking it up with multiple contractors who all have an equal chance to "win" each order. That wasn't your question, but felt that should be said. And, FWIW, the intent was probably focused towards agencies who were setting up large IDIQ contracts for commercial (like) items that multiple contractors could fulfill but were giving them to one vendor. And, I don't think that people are circumventing the rule. If you have a legitimate reason as to why your IDIQ should only have one awardee, then you shouldn't have a problem getting the waiver through. An example would be an IDIQ on a vehicle program. It wouldn't be prudent for you to have multiple awardees because of the cost of upkeeping a vehicle line, but you may have multiple requirements throughout hte year to order vehicles.

Here is the problem, unless the RFP specifically had terms in it that said that the prime contractor must use the same subcontractors proposed (at all tiers), I'm not sure what ground the USG would have to stand on to enforce your issue. Generally issues with subcontractors are dealt with at the prime contractor level and the USG does not involve itself in it. (Note: I said generally, there are some instances in which they would). Just because the prime submitted your costs as a part of the subcontractor portion of the proposal does not lock them in to using you. As you said, you turned down the teaming agreement, so you kinda screwed yourself to having something that would lock you in with them.

Ah, good point, I overread the "unobligated" portion of that statement. That changes how I look at it.

So you want to exercise the option early, even though you know at the time the work starts the funding will have already been rescinded? I'm not sure how appropriate that would be, since you already know in advance that a law that has went into place will rescind your funding before you actually need the work to start. I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question, more waiting for Vern or someone with more knowledge to answer it. What would the difference be between what you are attempting to do and me trying to take say...3 year money that is going to expire (or be rescinded, whichever) on 30 September, and exercise an option for December 30th? You have a bona fide need, but you have a bona fide need after the appropriation has already expired (If I have a bona fide need in FY13 but have FY12 1 year money, I can't use that to pay for the bona fide need in FY13). Again, could be wrong, but I'd rather have discussion so I understand it fully rather than not ask at all.

It is end of year, what is the point of putting a serial number into it when they would have to change it on Monday when the new FY starts? They could of thrown in the instrument type, but the serial number would of been pointless.

not sure if you were being a smartass in point 1, but I believe the poster is referring to a contract to bridge current supplies/services until the requirement is either a) recompeted or B ) the new sole source contract is negotiated. jpaynehydroid - Honestly, it depends on what Navy organization you are contracting with and what for, because recent guidance has been issued by many of the systems commands regarding bridge contracts for services. I'm not sure how much it affects you on the contractor side, but the Government side will have a much tougher time with it and justifying the need for it.

The only thing wrong with the statement was the word "guaranteed." The base contract need not provide for the minimum guarantee ("obligated"), as long as it is followed by a subsequent task order that obligates over the minimum guarantee. Although, I think we're all in agreeance with that. Poor wording? Sure. But, as another has alluded to, I've seen it a few times where the minimum guarantee was $0, and I'd also wager that it wouldn't be considered "nominal consideration" using Verns definition. After all, the contractor has to sign up to it as well, so they are consenting to the terms of the minimum guarantee by signing the contract, right?

eriend2, My fault for responding in a somewhat...attacking manner. You did lay out your response somewhat clearly, but where you are losing me (and others?) is where you are stating that each option period is a seperate fixed period, which is completely contradictory to the conclusion that has been reached in Case Law. I think this is what Vern may of been speaking to, but could you explain in a clearer manner I guess why you believe the courts ruled incorrectly in Verilease and others? It is spelled out very clearly in Verilease that minimum gurantees are not required in each option period because the options are part of the contract itself, not a seperate "option contract" as you are implying.

So, what you're saying is, you came up with different definitions than what are supported by Government Contract Case Law, and then applied them to "if/then" scenarios. And then, you come up with an analysis to support such claim. Got it. I'll continue when you can come up with a logical reason as to why multiple court decisions already stated by Vern do not apply. It seems as if you cannot look past your own opinion on this, so I should of took Verns route earlier and not even responded.

eriend2, I'm not sure what you are missing here regarding IDIQ contracts. I really think you should go read FAR 16.504 again. 16.504(a)(1) states that the contract must require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services. This does not state that the Government must order a minimum quantity in each year of the contract, nor if they exercise the option on the contract. At the most, your point would only stand if the contract you currently have, or are trying to setup/bid on, stated that there was a min/max on each order, per FAR 16.504(a)(3). But, I think the crux of your argument is that you believe each option is a new "option contract." I think the language in 16.504(a)(4)(i) is pretty plain however that the options are a part of the base contract, and all that they do is extend it. "Specify the period of the contract, including hte number of options and the period for which the Government may extend the contract under each option;" Notice, in emphasis, the word contract is singular. They are not referring to individual option contracts that arise from option exercise; they are referring to a new ordering period that is exercised on the base contract itself. But, just for more reference, 16.504( pretty much drives it home with stating that an IDIQ is appropriate when the Government cannot predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise quanties of supplies or services the Government will require during the contract period, and it would be idadvisable for the Government to commit itself more than a minimum quantity. Notice the use of the singular tense throughout the entire reading of the section, it is one contract, not a contract that contains multiple option contracts to follow.

wasn't the unlimited money rule taken away for ANCs and Indian Tribes? I thought it was changed to a max of $20M (which is still a lot for a "small" business), while the rest of small businesses cap was $4M. I'm sure your post was meant as somewhat humurous, but I'd say away from large awards to ANCs after all the publicity they are getting recently. Especially with the conviction of Eyaktek, Inc. for the thing they setup with the Army Corps of Engineers where $20M was smuggled into the PMs hands.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. How do you know if they are the lowest price if you don't know they are technically acceptable? What does your source selection plan say?

The security manager in your Program Office or Command should know all you need to know about ITAR/Export Restrictions on documents that they own. Key word is should. If you aren't getting far and your command has an FMS office, try there, they should be able to explain the ITAR/Export restriction process to you very well. From experience on that, you should not be putting that on FBO. It should be an attachment that is by request only, with requestor giving you information (CAGE Code) of the US based portion of there company at the very least. Even if it isn't "classified," it may be considered a sensitive document that should not be going to foreign firms. Without knowing exactly what document you have, that may be all you have to do. Your legal office probably has some useful language for you to throw in for people to request if you are drawing a blank, but I would run that through security first.

This is what happens when people can't read and ask questions about how to implement it. It still stands though, you are really only truly limited to not exceeding the cost of 2010 spending on the same or similar procurements. The limitation on what your negotiation objective is, well, a waste of time. Nothing binds you to your negotiation objective, so I'm not sure in the point of it other than to start negotiations on the Government end at a lower number in hopes of achieving a lower overall number.

gboyle - you are reading FAR Part 15 wrong and seem to be confusing cost and pricing data with certified cost/pricing data. While certified cost/pricing data may not be required, the Contracting Officer is directed to find data other than certified cost/pricing data "as necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price" per FAR 15.402(a)(2) and 15.403-3(a)(1)(ii). Specifcally, I'd review 15.403-3 to see why the CO may be asking you for the data. Have you told the CO that such data does not exist, or have you been adament on telling the CO that the price is sufficient based on other Consultant prices? Perhaps fully explaining the situation may help your cause.

I think we're both right, but ndeans question jumbled both: travel points and personal points accumulated. In the case of travel points, they are allowed to keep them if traveling under JTRs. In the case of personal cc use, they'd have to reimburse the Govt as you stated. I don't think the JTRs differentiate between what card is used to purchase the flight, as long as you are traveling on Government approved travel you are entitled to keep those points.

Correct. And, besides the obvious that it would be overly cumbersome for us to be monitoring points accumulated on airfare or any other mode of travel, we'd be setting two different standards. The JTRs expressly allow for travelers to keep any promotional material, including frequent flyer benefits, for personal use (points, upgrades, etc.). See JTRs for civilian use, Chapter 3, Part D, Section B.1. So as long as they are no additional cost to the Government and they are hte same terms offered to the general public, DoD at least allows you to keep them.

Should we take the same assumption of no discussions, and that there is another completely acceptable proposal? I would say, assuming there isn't the criterion of award without discussion, that you would most definitely want to evaluate it. If you are running a trade-off source selection, what if the offeror who sent you a price, just not broken down into labor rates and categories, was by far the most technically sound proposal you received that you would be willing to pay somewhat of a premium to obtain? Would you then throw the entire proposal out the window because they offered you a price, but not broken down into labor categories? I'd say it is worth the discussions to correct it in that case. The GAO documents this well, and it can go either way depending on what you wrote in your solicitation. You have significant discretion as a contracting officer to make these decisions. I don't think it is wise to throw someone out on a technicality, especially when the proposal in this case could be easily corrected through discussions and an FPR. They should have the labor breakdowns already on hand.

They aren't work arounds, that is called adapting to changes and moving on. Just because you are so set in your ways that you can't possibly change how you operate doesn't mean the rest of the work force is. Addressing the last portion of your reply, your entire argument is based on an asusmption you have made in interpretation of this memo, which omits things such as the obvious: this is mere policy guidance implementing a law. This isn't DPAP putting out guidance out of no where, they are merely doing what they were told to do by Congress, so this memo isn't going to be retracted, because it cannot be.

And why do you project so? Have you had a discussion with your programs to see if it is feasible to tone down the requirement to become compliant with your 2010 spending levels on services? Have you assessed the requirements to see if all of them are truely necessary? Have you talked to the contractor to see if anything can be done to find savings? I'm thinking not, because there is always a way to accomplish something. You have simply either not looked hard enough, or do not care enough to try. You'd rather complain about it than finding a way to accomplish it. Your contractors will be the first to tell you where you could save money on your requirement and what is costing you the most.

You can always add options, you just need to have the proper authority to do so. In a normal case, that generally would entail a J&A justifying why you are increasing the PoP or scope of the contract. However, you are dealing with an 8(a). I suggest you read FAR 19.8 and what FAR 6.3 has to say regarding 8(a) sole source contracts.

Yeah, I can't think of why you would want to use TIs on a multiple award IDIQ in the first place. You generally see them on development contracts where funding is added incrementally and the TIs are funded via SLINs.

DoN, the Navy uses them, called Technical Instructions (5252.242-9115 Technical Instructions). To use them off of an IDIQ Task Order, I presume the agency would cut a task order for x amount of hours, time, money, etc. and then issue a Technical Instruction under that task order that directs the contractor what to perform as long as it is within the general scope of the contract, 5252.242-9115(B ). It sounds like what you two are describing is a modified way of doing this where they are issuing one task order for what appears to be a large amount of either money or time, and then just issuing TI after TI under it to direct the contractor and avoid fair opportunity for each of those taskings. In the case of using TIs, a multiple award IDIQ is not really the correct place to use it. That would be a very thin line you are walking with regards to fair opportunity since an IDIQ would be used for recurring defined requirements. I would think issuing a new task order would be the clean way to do it for each TI in the case of a multiple award IDIQ.

SMM, just to help you out, your funds were appropriated by Congress in the FY11 Defense Appropriation Bill. The MIPR simply transferred funds from one DoD agency to yours, presumably because your agency already had a contract in place that would satisfy there need. The MIPR doesn't appropriate. DoN is correct, you have a bona fide need of FY12, with two year money appropriated in FY11, so there is no violation of the bona fide needs rule. Why do you think you have a violation of the ADA?

I encourage you to re-read your excerpt with emphasis on the bolded. Since when has the DoD ever required that the only price we can agree upon is our objective position in a negotiation? Further, paragraph 1 applies to sole source situations. They are attempting to reign in costs in what they feel that they are overspending on. If I worked for a defense contractor and my boss told me that I could not accept anything below 14% profit, how is that different from what this policy does? It tells us that we cannot accept more than what the Government paid in 2010. As far as I know, our agency is still attempting to interpret how we are going to comply. But, since you are looking for a more theoretical approach it seems, you are contradicting yourself. You claim it goes against free market economy swings in prices, and then claim you are a high dollar services buyer. Logic dictates that if you are a high dollar services provider (i.e. high demand), you would expect to see lower prices if you are buying more. Just because your negotiators aren't leveraging this to there advantage does not mean that they couldn't, especially when establishing multiple award IDIQs. And, I'd encourage you to look at how you came up with your pricing from FY11 and FY12 from 2010, as the COL in the United States has not drastically risen, even in the DC area. Are your negotiators just using the standard, oh lets just add 3% inflation tactic? If so, you've been paying too much. The latest BLS data from the end of 2011 showed a roughly 1.6% increase in COL per year from 2009-2011, which is roughly half of what many people think is just the normal. It is their fault if they are not researching it further and just accepting it for what it is. And, I completely disagree with your blanket statement of: Are you insinuating that many of these companies could do without the Government money they are getting, especially from DoD? If so, I'd really encourage you to go look at just how much the DoD spends on services each year, and then come back here and tell me how these companies would absorb that kind of blow if the Government just stopped contracting with them. This is why everyone in private industry is freaked out because of the Sequester, because it would be a drastic blow to all companies who contract with the Government, esepcially with DoD.