WC79

4 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Which is it? IDIQ or requirements?

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

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

According to FAR 17.204(e), "Unless otherwise approved in accordance with agency procedures, the total of the basic and option periods shall not exceed 5 years in the case of services... " You are not going to include options periods in the parent IDIQ contract. So if the rule were to apply, it would apply separately to each task order that includes an option.

As for FAR 22.1002-1, did you read the Department of Labor regulation I cited, 4 CFR 4.145(a), which explains that rule? If not, why don't you go do that?

 

Thanks. 

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

4 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Which is it? IDIQ or requirements?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Why are you struggling with explaining? What don't you understand? Is it because you plan to include options in the task orders?

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?

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

My thought.  The "Analysis" section of the linked GAO decision will provide you with valuable insight to consider as there a more details that need to be known about your instant need than what your opening post provides.  Again I highly encourage you to read the GAO decision.

https://www.gao.gov/products/b-302358

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? 

51 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

When you say:

I presume that by "10 years" you are referring to the period beginning on the first day of the ordering period, which is stated in FAR 52.216-18, Ordering (AUG 2020), paragraph (a), and the last day on which deliveries or performance can be required, which is stated in FAR 52.216-22, Indefinite Quantity (OCT 1995), paragraph (d).

Then you say:

On what do you base that statement? I know the definition of option in FAR 2.101, but task orders have never been considered to be options as addressed in FAR Subpart 17.2.

You seem to contradict yourself, but the answer is no.

As for FAR 22.1002-1, you must refer to Department of Labor regulations in order to understand the FAR's obscure reference to a five-year limitation. See 4 CFR 4.145, paragraph (a). That five-year limitation is not applicable in your case.

That's unfortunate. It does not speak well of "policy."

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. 

22 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Please be specific! What do you want to know?

Asking for "thoughts" about "different potential paths" is nonsense.

Do you want to know if its okay to exercise the option even though the option wasn't priced and evaluated?

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?  

On 8/26/2022 at 9:52 AM, C Culham said:

These facts raise another possible issue - unauthorized commitment. 

My quick view is I wonder if the HCA would direct that the commitment be cancelled or seek agency head approval of the justification from the Head of Agency.   I had a similar experience back in the day where the HCA lacked the authority for approval and whole matter landed on the desk of the Head of Agency for ratification.   

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? 

I've added a bit of information to the original topic. Who covers the cost (of testing)when testing is not provided onsite and the contractor has to seek out testing in order to gain access.

COVID-19 testing (screening tests) for onsite access to government facilities for unvaccinated contractors, who covers the cost of the testing when it (testing) is not provided at the government facility and the contractor has to seek out testing? Should the contractors employer be held responsible for covering the cost of testing. Or should the government cover the cost.  If contractor access to the government site is required who covers the cost?

Just curious. In the instance of a self imposed ceiling why would a LSJ be needed? 

I recently received a question concerning BPA total dollar limitations and what action might be needed to increase that amount. My agency has a requirement that approaching the total dollar limitation and our program folks would like to increase the total dollar limitation. Understanding that a BPA is not a contract, does anyone have experience in handling situations like this.  

Ordinarily this would warrant a J&A to increase the total dollar amount or a within scope modification.

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

WC79,

Rather than reading cases (although there is nothing wrong with reading cases), it may be more important to read your contract.  Does your contract have text that defines key personnel in such a way as to exclude consultants?  That is what really matters.

I agree, the contract was researched and everyone was clear that the contract did not prohibit its use. I've never came a across this before and wanted to make sure i wasnt missing anything. 

13 minutes ago, WC79 said:

Thanks everyone!!

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Yes, it's possible. Why not? It is not impermissible, unless you have defined "key (i.e., important) personnel" or consultant in such a way as to make it so?

There have been a number of GAO protest decisions which have mentioned consultants as key personnel. See, e.g., Magellan Health Services, GAO B-298912, Jan. 5, 2007:

 

Thanks this is helpful. Was this a case you were familiar with? if not how were able to find this case. I tried searching several times but couldn't find anything.

Thanks everyone!!

Thats correct. The consultant is being proposed as key personnel on the contract and is not an employee of the contractor. Is this possible?

I'm faced with an issue of a contractor proposing a consultant as Key Personnel on a firm fixed price service contract. The HHSAR (352.237-75)doesn't seem to outright prohibit it but i wanted to see if anyone has come across something like this before.

So my organization is currently faced with the issue of having annual funding to conduct non-severable activity (biomedical R&D). With funding lacking to obligate an entire contract amount up front  I was wondering if the statement of work for the requirement was written in phases (recruitment, exam, follow-up) and the phases are listed as options could each phase be fully funded when exercised. Lets assume the phases were recruitment - 6 months, exam - 22 months, follow up - 8 months.