Don Mansfield

buddyandme, An offeror may propose a price that is below SCA wage and benefit rates. See Group GPS Multimedia, B-310716, January 22, 2008.

1. Was reimbursement for the travel cost home contingent upon finishing the job? 2. Are you saying the travel cost is higher if he comes home early than if he came home when originally scheduled? I'm only asking about the travel cost.

Would you have paid for the employee to come home anyway (i.e., if there was no need to come home early)? If yes, then why wouldn't you pay for the employee to come home early?

So, based on what they told you, an agency could award an IDIQ contract on September 30, 2010 with a minimum of $1 million, obligate FY10 funds, and then use those funds to issue orders through September 29, 2011? That's a new one.

parkerr, This is what the table says for recording obligations on IDIQ contracts: This is what you said: Nothing in the table suggests that you can use funds obligated to cover the contract minimum on an IDIQ to place orders in future fiscal years. That is something that you incorrectly concluded from the statement in the table. Your conclusion ignores the Bona Fide Needs rule.

parkerr, You are making things up. There is no such rule. If an agency issues an order against an IDIQ contract in a fiscal year subsequent to the year in which it awarded that IDIQ contract, it must use funds that are current at the time the order is issued. Period. Whether or not the agency met the minimum in the fiscal year in which the IDIQ contract was awarded is totally irrelevant. From Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Volume II, Chapter 7, p. 7-21: Imagine if what you wrote were really true. What would stop agencies from awarding IDIQ contracts with high minimums at the end of a fiscal year as a way to park unused funds that they would then be able to use in subsequent fiscal years? Everyone would be doing it.

I don't think GAO's interpretation of the rule of two in Delex will fly anymore based on the language of Sec. 1331 (see formerfed's post), because it would render Sec. 1331 meaningless.

Did you read FAR Subpart 25.5?

Did you include FAR 52.225-2 in your RFQ?

That's not entirely true. A FAR Part 13 BPA is not a contract. A BPA under a FSS schedule contract is a term of a contract. Though they are both called "BPA", but they are different in their legal effect. See http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php...entry1829.

Assuming that there aren't any decisions that take exception to an agency's actions under circumstances similar to scenarios 1, 2a, and 2b (I haven't looked), then I agree with your statement.

Yes. We are saying that we have a bona fide need of the current fiscal year for at least the minimum at contract award. In setting the minimum, we should ensure that we are reasonably certain to order the minimum during the current fiscal year. Like I explained before, each order is a new obligation. If that obligation occurs in a fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year in which the IDIQ contract was awarded, then it cannot be funded with the same funds that were obligated upon award of the basic IDIQ contract.

No. Let's say an agency awards an IDIQ contract in January 2010 with a guaranteed minimum of $100K. It has a liability under the contract of $100K and must record an obligation of $100K in FY10 funds (let's assume annual appropriations). In February 2010, the agency will issue the first order for $50K under the IDIQ contract. The issuance of this order will reduce their liability under the IDIQ contract to $50K, so the agency must record a deobligation of $50K. This $50K that has been deobligated can be used to fund the February 2010 order. The bona fide needs rule. Each new order under an IDIQ is a new obligation and must be funded with a current appropriation. Following the example above, let's say the agency wants to issue it's second order in October 2010 for $50K. The issuance of this order will reduce their liability under the IDIQ contract to $0, so the agency must record a deobligation of $50K. This $50K that has been deobligated is from a FY10 appropriation, so it cannot be used to fund the October 2010 (FY11) order. This is why I posed the questions that I did in response to the following statement by ji20874: If he/she were dealing with annual appropriations, then the funds obligated to cover the minimum would never be used to buy anything. I doubt that the folks providing the funds would have "no problem" with this practice.

Jacques, I'm confused, too. Are you trying to say that, based on these decisions, an agency may obligate a large amount of FY10 funds under an IDIQ as a minimum in FY10 and use those funds to issue orders in FY11?

When in doubt, read the prescriptions. FAR 17.208 states: So, it depends how you want to express the option. You could include the option to buy more of the same widgets within a line item or as a separate line item.

Under what authority did you do a local area set-aside? The only authority I know of is for disaster/emergency assistance activities (FAR Subpart 26.2).

You did a local area set-aside for art work? Was the purchase in support of major disaster or emergency assistance activities?

ji20874, Some questions for you. Following your example-- 1. When you award your IDIQ contract in September 2010, do you record an obligation of FY10 funds? 2. When you award your task order in October 2010, do you record an obligation of FY11 funds? 3. If the answer to 2 and 3 are both yes, then is it correct to conclude that the FY10 funds were never used to purchase anything?

ji20874, It's true that a task order for the contract minimum need not be issued simultaneously with the award of an IDIQ contract. However, if you don't do this, then you must record an obligation for the contract minimum on the IDIQ contract itself. When an IDIQ contract is awarded, an obligation is created for the amount of the contract minimum. It doesn't matter if the obligation does not get recorded--the obligation still exists. By law, an agency is required to record its obligations in its books. Contract obligations are typically communicated to an agency's accounting folks by providing a copy of the contractual document that cites an appropriation and states the amount of the obligation that has been created. If you award an IDIQ contract and do not record an obligation for the contract minimum (either on a task order or on the IDIQ contract), then the result will be that your agency will underrecord its obligations. Lastly, it's foolish to rely solely on acquisition regulations when it comes to matters of fiscal law.

FAR 52.217-6 isn't required. FAR 52.217-7 could be used or a clause substantially the same as either FAR 52.217-6 or -7.

You can avoid having to do the J&A by using SAP to acquire the extra widget. Follow the procedures at FAR 13.106-1(.

Technically, the threshold doesn't matter--it's the use of SAP that relieves one of the requirement to comply with FAR Part 6. You could have use SAP for acquisitions above the SAT (Part 6 would not apply) and not use SAP for acquisitions below the SAT (Part 6 would apply).

The motor vehicles would be "government property." "Contractor-owned property" is not defined. However, "government property" includes property that is not owned by the Government (i.e., property that is leased). If the Government provided those vehicles to another contractor under a different contract, they would be "government-furnished property", a subset of "government property."

In your example, ABC is leasing the property from XYZ to perform a Government contract. That doesn't mean that the Government is leasing the property.