WC79

This is a requirements, indefinite deliver contract. Per FAR 16.501-2(a)

Thanks. In reading FAR 22.1002-1, does this not apply to the parent IDIQ, since no funds are placed on the parent level?

No, the argument here is that FAR 17.204(e) applies to the parent IDIQ as well. They are also tying in FAR 22.1002-1 that limits service contracts to 5 years. I disagree that it applies to the parent but is it simply because the parent doesn't contain options. Then what about FAR 22.1002-1?

Thanks for the GAO case. Could the interpretation of the analysis section be applied to this situation to justify that at the parent level, an IDIQ contract would not be subject to FAR 17.2?

That is correct the period of performance of the parent IDIQ will be 10 years starting on the first day of the ordering period and ending the last day performance is required. When i mentioned that task orders would be awarded as options I meant that we may build options into the task orders. I am struggling with explaining why FAR 17.207(e) would not apply. Other then the fact that the parent IDIQ does not contain options, its not making sense to me.

I have a curious question. I have a requirement that's being contemplated to be awarded as IDIQ requirements (Non-IT and non-advisory and assistance services) service contract for 10 years (no options). The parent IDIQ would be for 10 years (no options) and the task orders would be awarded within the order period which would be shorter period then the 10 years. The task orders would be awarded as options that would need to adhere to FAR 17.204(e). During internal discussions with policy there's been some varying opinions on whether or not an IDIQ contract be awarded beyond 5 years due to FAR 17.204(e) and FAR 22.1002-1. Since the parent IDIQ does not contain options would FAR 17.204(e) apply? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

And correction, this example is a task order off of a multiple award IDIQ. If I were to add 3 months on to the task order using FAR 52.217-8 would this require a J&A since it was not initially priced and evaluated at award? Are there any alternative methods to extending thats available?

Please provide your thoughts on the following example. There's an IT requirement that's approaching its expiration date. The requirement is severable in nature. Its a 3 year base plus options contract. We are a few months away from the expiration date (end of second option) of the contract and would like to extend the contract by 3 months due to unforeseeable delays in the acquisition renewal process. FAR 52.217-8 is in the contract but the options were not priced or evaluated prior to award. I would like to get some thoughts on different potential paths to extending this contract, if there are any.

I have a very general question, would a contractor that providing onsite support service be eligible for government rideshare (benefit providing subsidy for metro and bus cost) program thru the government organization?

Are you saying that this is an unauthorized commitment because the CO lacks the authority to move forward with a sole source requirement?

FAR Part 6 applies to this requirement Let me add clarity to this. The acquisition office (making the award) went about making an award without getting the necessary approvals (sole source justification). After the award was made the sole source justification was submitted for approval (submitted to Head of Contracting Activity).

If an acquisition office provides a sole source justification after the award of a contract, what exactly is this in violation of? The approval to sole source was never received prior to issue of the solicitation. If the approval comes after the award of the contract, what type of violation is this?

Why wouldnt prohibition (FAR 16.301-3(b)) in the FAR apply to this?

Quick question - When awarding a task order from a commercial vehicle like NITAAC (which is a GWAC that provides IT services and supplies)(FAR 16.5)) for IT services, can you award a cost-reimbursement task order? According to FAR 16.301-3(b) The use of cost-reimbursement contracts is prohibited for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services . I was wondering if this also applies to FAR 16.5.

FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(c) - Justification for limiting sources states "In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures." I need help on the interpretation of the statement "in the interest of economy and efficiency" . Does anyone know how this portion is being defined?