CSpecialist21

C, sorry but i didn't see your reply before posting mine above. I appreciate the perspective on what "intent to make a purchase" actually means with respect to this situation.

I appreciate the feedback, but as I mentioned in the original question, this is purely a what-if situation (there is no FOPR to put out there for possible protest). Perhaps "I'm certain" was not the best choice of words My opinion is based on interpretation of 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B) that you cannot provide "fair notice of the intent to make a purchase" to two different IDIQs simultaneously when you are certain to have only 1 award. But, I fully admit that there is no full-stop restriction (CO shall not) in Part 16.

Is FAR16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B) applicable here? "The contracting officer shall—(1) Provide a fair notice of the intent to make a purchase..." The internal debate is whether or not you actually have an "intent to make a purchase" via each IDIQ in a scenario where simultaneous use of more than one IDIQ is contemplated.

My apologies if this has been asked before, but I can't find it here nor on GSA Q&A boards...where is the restriction on soliciting for the same requirement on two different IDIQs at the same time, then awarding against only one? This has become a debate internally in the office, and more of a what-if scenario at this point. I know this sounds odd, but here's the scenario -- Time is limited and a Part 16 order is preferred over a potential direct award if there isn't time for a full-blown Part 15 source selection. Market research shows IDIQ #1 will provide slightly more competition over utilization of IDIQ #2. However, the best outcome in terms of maximum competition would be to solicit via both since it encompasses the largest vendor pool. I'm certain this is not possible, but I can't find the documentation to support why.

Vern, in researching this issue on wifcon, I saw several of your responses regarding other IDIQ and -8 questions (in particular, if the -8 incorporated at the multi-award IDIQ-level flows down to task orders). You indicated that you thought the -8 was not appropriate for IDIQs, but also that the -8 could be tailored. I've never seen a tailored -8...do you have any examples? Also, do you think it would be acceptable to tailor the -8 to make it clear that if utilized, the increase in ordering period (NTE 6 months) would trigger a proportional increase in the contract maximum? It would seem to me that more clear language such as this (on a future IDIQ) would alleviate the confusion now faced on this $10 IDIQ.

I agree. However, the "within the limits" language is exactly what is being pointed to as support for the $1 increase. The suggestion is the current limit ($10 max) and annual estimated amounts ($2) are BOTH shown in the contract. Therefore using the same estimation, a 6-month extension adds $1 to the max. It seems to me it's an end-run around a max increase.

My apologies if this has been asked before, but I can not find the topic here on wifcon. Consider a single-award IDIQ structured as a base + 4 OY (one-year ordering periods). What impact, if any, does the 6-month extension clause (FAR 52.217-8) have on the contract max quantity? I believe the -8 simply extends the pricing of the given ordering period for a NTE total of 6 months, and has no impact on max/ceiling. However, there is some debate internally about whether or not the -8 also increases the max quantity by the same relative percentage. Example: If a max quantity over five years was stated as $10, and the estimated quantity per year was $2, then utilizing the -8 for a full 6-months would increase the max quantity by $1 (half of the one-year estimate) for a new max of $11. Thoughts?