Vbus

Bob, Thank you for this story and thank you for wifcon.

Don, Thanks for the response!

No, a task order is not a UCA per se. However, if a task order were unpriced, then it would be a UCA.

Yeah, I never thought of a delivery/task order as a UCA, its just a CA. So the key phrase of that definition is "for which the price has not been agreed upon before performance has begun." I get that, I'm just thrown off by the definition's inclusion of orders against BOA's (but again, if that call order is "unpriced" then that is what is being described as a UCA).

Yes. If you are placing a task order in FY10, then you need to fund it with FY10 funds (assuming annual appropriations). This would be true even if you awarded the IDIQ contract in FY09, obligated FY09 funds, and had not yet met the minimum.

Agreed.

-

Good read. Question: Does a task order placed against an IDIQ contract meet the definition of an undefinitized contract action? Note that DFARS 217.7401(d) includes an order against a BOA as an example of a UCA.

I ask because for agency IDIQ contracts, we routinely fund the minimum ordering amount at the IDIQ contract level. When a requirement is definitized and a task order is placed, funding is allocated from the contract level to the task order level. If, for example, funding was obligated to an IDIQ contract in FY09, would it be improper to allocate that funding to a task order that was placed in FY10?