Mpqholygrail

Boof, Thank you for the reply. We have decided to go this way.

The orders are exceeding the CLIN maximums for the IDIQ. We have orders that are exceeding the maximum amount allowed on certain CLIN's for the entire year not at the order level. The amount of orders on a specific CLIN is exceeding the amount allocated to it during a 1 year period on the IDIQ. I will be justifying the action per FAR 6.302-1(A)(2)(ii)(B). When the current contract was put in place, major delays of up to 6 months took place when the incumbent vendor and vendor owned equipment was exchanged to the new contractor. The supplies in this contract impact in the development of major weapons systems being overhauled and or modified. The current contract meets a portion of the governments demands but not all of it and it is clear to me a new contract to handle the total volume necessary, will need to be drawn up after proper competition. Although delays will happen anyway if a new vendor is selected after competition, the timing would be less invasive to current operations. This allows for planning to take place for a versatile phase-in plan in case a new vendor replaces the incumbent. I recently took this over so I am attempting to stay within the regulations and limit mission impact.

Situation: A current single award IDIQ base plus 2 has been setup in such a way that it no longer fits the agency’s needs and the requirements are out of scope of the original IDIQ. To kill the contract while in an option year would be detrimental to end user because it would cause delays lasting several months to the services and products provided. Solution: Establish a concurrent sole source no option one-year single award IDIQ to the current vendor justifying that current systems must conform to the existing systems. The current contractor will not utilize any systems placed by another vendor due to liability concerns. While both IDIQ’s are in place, prepare a new fully competed IDIQ reflecting the new scope. Question: Is this sound conceptually in accordance with the FAR? Opinions are greatly appreciated.