CountryTime

ALCON, Thanks so much for your replies. As many of you have noted, the IDIQ requires the contractor to propose in response to an RFP so they should be paid for that effort. This past week we decided to put a management TO in place to provide for proposal preparation along with a few other tasks. This should solve the issue. We are on TO 15 or so and this has never been an issue, because previous PCOs have concurred with contractor requests to cover TO proposal prep costs prior to TO award. Obviously the contract is lacking but hopefully this new management TO will right the ship....I appreciate the replies.

I am a new PCO in an organization and have been assigned a single source IDIQ. The IDIQ contains CPAF, CPFF, Cost, and FFP CLINs. I am preparing to issue a new task order RFP and the contractor has asked for Government concurrence that proposal preparation costs will be reimbursed whether the TO is awarded or not. In the past these costs have been charged direct in the proposal and covered as direct on the resultant task order. To my knowledge there has never been an advance agreement in place at the TO level (each TO is negotiated). The contractor is required to provide a proposal under the IDIQ terms and conditions. I have requested a wag from the contractor for proposal costs so I can enact an advance agreement and document the Government's consideration of the expected costs, but the contractor is refusing to provide. Instead they say they have always gotten concurrence for previous task orders although I can find no such documentation. I understand the advance agreement is not required. What are the options for providing concurrence to the contractor and how have you seen proposal costs covered in the event a TO is not awarded? I have requested a disclosure statement already, but have not yet received.

What are your thoughts on a modification to a commercial PO to enact a slight reduction in service for remaining options (52.212-4(c) as the authority) and, in the same mod, exercising the first option period citing 52.217-9 in the verbiage of the mod? Essentially citing two authorities in the same modification.