Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

CSpecialist21

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CSpecialist21

  1. 20 minutes ago, C Culham said:

    Posted noting  ji's most recent response.

    My view is no the FAR is not applicable.  As I stated in a previous post the rules of FO are that of the contract once awarded therefore in my view if the parent contracts do not prevent doing FO under two different  multiple award contracts why couldn't one do it (noting the references that ji has provided).  Or in other words I do not believe FAR 16.505(b)(1)iii)(B) addresses the scenario you have proposed and if a prohibition has likewise not been found in law (statute/case law) executive order or other regulation then there you have it.

    An alternative view suggests that you are complying with the FAR reference you have provided as you have clear purpose, it would seem, to make an award to somebody under the contracts.  Therefore compliance if you will with "intent" matter at hand.

    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.

  2. 13 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

    CSpecialist,

    In your original posting, you said "I'm certain this is not possible" yet you asked the question anyway.  You got responses and opinions already, but it seems those answers didn't fully support your position.  If you don't want to do it, then don't do it.  If you want to do it, then do it.  What else can anyone say?  Perhaps FAR 1.102(d) and 1.102-4(a) and (e) will be helpful to you.

    Here's a thought -- do it, with a blurb as described -- If anyone protests (before offers are due), you will be able to see if the legal argument has any validity.

    In your original posting, you said time was limited.  You could have already released your Fair Opportunity Notices by now, and even had responses (or protests) by now. 

    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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

×
×
  • Create New...