IAMBATMAN

@joel hoffman the program office is accustomed to using pre-qualification with their A&E work, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't a circumstance of using pre-qualifications for regular construction that I was unaware of. The project will move forward as a typical Part 15 procurement. Thanks for the input

@joel hoffman Basically they want to do a two phase selection procedure for design-Bid-build. Their rational is that the process would result in the best qualified contractors. It would be go/no factors.

I work for a non DOD agency, I have a construction requirement ( to build a regular building) and my program office is asking to do Pre-Qualifications. I'v only done Pre-Qualifications for A&E contracts, so before I tell them no, I would like to know is anyone has references or input on the matter. Thanks.

Competition may be required for modifications of existing contracts if there is a cardinal change to the contract (such as an increase to the total estimated amount of the award, a change to the Statement of Work (SOW), or an extension of the period of performance).

Yes I think there should, mods sometimes add up to be 5x the original amount of the inital contract. J&A as in Justification and Approvals I use it loosely to cover the authorities under Subpart 6.3, the J&A's were Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition. Is that what JOFO stand for? J&A's were under the SAT so posting was required, just a copy for the file.

Hypothetical situation . Let's say you have a competitively awarded Multiple Award IDIQ contract for Security Services, you compete and award a Task Order (Base +4 Options) for $100k. Throughout the 5 year Period of performance 3 separate J&A's for ceiling increases of $75K were approved, these are in scope modifications and there is enough capacity on the IDIQ . So you have an Initial Task Order value of $100k and three modifications that have a value of $225K . I would like to know if there is guidance on a maximum cumulative modification dollar amount, for example, something saying " all modifications shall not exceed the total initial contract value by 75%".

In 2016 -8 was used to extend option year 4 of the base IDIQ to January 2017. In January 2017 -8 was used on specific mission critical Task orders that ended in January 2017 to extend them to July 2017 - 8 for the base IDIQ expired in January, -8 for those extended task order will expire in July

@Vern Edwards Term? it was a base plus 4 options, the base 6 month extension via 52.217-8 expired in January FAR 52.216-22 paragraph (d) "180 days beyond the expiration date of the contract"

I appreciate all of the input, I’m leaning toward using FAR 52.237-3, here’s the scenario: Base IDIQ expired January 2017 52.217-8 was used to extend Task orders to July 2017 52.237-3 will be used for phase in/out 52.217- 8 says “The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months.” Does the phase in/out up to 90 days conflict?

Can FAR 52.237-3, Continuity of Services clause be utilized on an existing Task Order if the Base IDIQ is dead? The clause was in the Base not the Task Order.

Can anyone recommend one over the other? The pros, cons of both. I have a requirement for IT advisory services, which is available through both vehicles. I have experience with GSA not NITAAC. Thanks in advance.