Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Ham

Members
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ham

  • Rank
    New Member
  1. Thanks, however I read FAR 16.503(a)(2) to pertain to the maximum amount of an order. I don't think it applies to any intended maximum amount of the umbrella contract.
  2. We’re in the acquisition planning stage for a 10 year, R&D, single award Requirements contract as described in FAR 16.503. I’ve read the archived discussion on the inclusion of FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract and how nothing is gained by including it in an IDIQ contract. But I’m thinking 52.217-9 might be worth including in a Requirements contract. Since award will be made to a single source and should anything go awry over a ten year performance period I could end the contract by not exercising an upcoming option term without having to worry about a possible Part 49 termination. Also, the marketplace might change and new, attractive companies could emerge that I might want to consider but I'd still be tied to a single source. Any thoughts? Also, FAR 16.503(a)(1) requires that the CO “state a realistic estimated total quantity in the solicitation and resulting contract. This estimate is not a representation to an offeror or contractor that the estimated quantity will be required or ordered, or that conditions affecting requirements will be stable or normal”. Given the 10 year performance period, over time ordering may increase above what I had originally anticipated. If that happens, may I exceed the “estimated total quantity” without a mod to the contract or a non-competitive justification since it is just an estimate and not a maximum ceiling?
  3. I have: A competitive, IDIQ type solicitation planned as a small businesses set-aside award with a five year period of performance Contract award will be made to a single offeror in accordance with one of the criterion under FAR 16.504( c )(1)(ii)( B ) Task Orders (TOs) will be firm fixed price orders for services The literature points to two possible strategies in evaluating price in IDIQ solicitations for services - a sample task method and an estimated quantities method. Sample Task Method Under the sample task method, the solicitation requires offerors to submit prices for one or more real or fictional TOs. GAO has found the sample TO method of price evaluation to constitute “adequate price evaluation” whereby “nothing (was) improper in the agency’s determination that the awardees’ and protesters’ proposed prices were fair and reasonable” (see C. L. Price and Associates, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-403476.2, 2011). In order to comply with CICA, the GAO has held that when using a sample TO as the basis for evaluating competing proposals, the offerors' proposed prices must be based on rates that will be binding on the TO as well as on all future work under the contract (see CW Government Travel, Inc.--Reconsideration, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-295530.2, 2005 CPD 139). Lastly, the agency must award the sample TO contemporaneously with the award of the contract, in order to meet an agency’s bona fide need (see U.S. Small Business Administration – Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity Contract Guaranteed Minimum, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-321640). Estimated Quantities Method Under the estimated quantities method, cost elements such as the estimated number of labor hours by job position and the unit amounts of materials/supplies are specified by the Government (usually based on prior experience) and presented in the solicitation in the form of annual pricing spreadsheets. Offerors develop their annual contract prices by multiplying the Government provided amounts by the offeror’s ceiling costs for each of the specified cost elements in the spreadsheet. The total proposed contract price is then the sum of all annual prices. In effect, the Government and the contractor are negotiating the reasonableness of such unit costs but not their realism for the work to be performed. There is no intent on the part of the Government to obligate fiscal year funds in the amount of such annual prices. As a federal agency has stated in one of its solicitations “the purpose of the pricing spreadsheet is to provide a uniform pricing template for evaluation of offerors for award. The estimated total number of hours provided (by the Government) are (sic) not contractual commitments and are not intended to represent actual expected experience of any given contractor. The dispersion of hours was chosen based on actual experience and this is determinative of the price evaluation.” Questions Under the estimated quantities method, because there is no means for evaluating and comparing the realistic labor mixes and quantities that would be expected on actual TOs, are the requirements of CICA met when the prices are not contractual commitments but merely the aggregate of mechanically calculated ceiling costs? Does such a price evaluation method possibly “minimize the potential impact of cost or price as to make it a nominal evaluation factor” (see The MIL Corporation, B-294836, Dec. 20, 2004) thereby failing the CICA standard for considering price as a meaningful factor in proposal evaluation and source selection? Under the estimated quantities method how do you determine which offeror’s proposed contract price provides best value when you only have ceiling costs and the distribution of these costs on future TOs is unknown? Since I’m dealing with a competitive solicitation resulting in a single award would I be better off doing a requirements type contract with option years rather than a multiple year IDIQ contract? Lastly, I haven’t been able to get my hands on "Evaluating Price or Costs in Task Order Contracts " in the November 2005 issue of the Nash & Cibinic Report or Vern Edwards’ “Task Order Contracting, Understanding and Using Task Order Contracts”. If anybody can send copies to me via email (without violating copyright) that would be appreciated.
×