Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'IDIQ'.
I posted this to another thread a few weeks ago (http://www.wifcon.co...?showtopic=1735) but never received a response so I thought I would give it another shot, two questions. (1) Views on the practice of not entering a date (i.e. 15 June 2014) or a period of time (90 days after the end of the ordering period) in 52.216-22(d) but entering something along the lines of, "end of the final task order's period of performance”? I'm not a big fan of using language similar to the above as I feel there should be a definitive end to the period of time of a contractor's obligations under a basic contract; setting scope of the contract with regard to time. (2) (contract admin question) What about modifying the date in 52.216-22(d) subsequent to the ordering period's expiration? For instance, ordering period ended 01 July 2012, task order was issued for 180 days on 30 June, 52.216-22(d) states 180 days, but on 21 August 2012 a KO tries to modify 52.216-22(d) date to 365 days to issue a subsequent mod to the aformentioned task order to extend it to 365 days. Contract was via full and open competition. My thought is sole source extension? Dynamics Corp. of America v. United States, 389 F.2d 424, 430-33 (Ct. Cl. 1968) (treat orders like options) in combination with Major Contracting Services Inc. B-401472 (option is a sole source if it wasn't evaluated at the contract award, requires J&A).
Scenario: A multiple award IDIQ contract for R&D servcies was awarded sometime near the end of FY'09. The vehicle consisted of 37 base contracts with 37 different contractors. All base contracts were funded with the established minimum ordering amount. I have recently taken over this contract and the time has come to exercise an option period on all of the contracts. To date there are 15 to 20 contractors that have not been awarded task orders. My reasoning tells me that upon exercising the option on these base contracts, I should be required to obligate funds in an amount equal to the minimum ordering amount and ensure that those funds remain present throughout all periods of performance until that time when a task order is awarded and the minimum ordering amount has been satisfied. I don't think this has taken place to date. I believe the contracts were modified to exercise the options, but the amount required to satisfy the minimum ordering amount was never carried through to the new period of performance. What would be the effect had the funds that were obligated upon award been no-year funds? Also, the specific language that was used in the contract seems to suggest that the minimum ordering amount is payable only at the end of the contract period, inclusive of options. Does that make a difference as regards the amount that should have been funded on the contract at time of award? The exact language from the contract follows: Fulfilling Minimum Ordering Requirements The Government has no obligation to issue task orders to any contractor beyond the minimum amount specified above. For each successful contractor, there will be a one time "minimum guarantee award amount" during the life of the contract, which includes all option years, if exercised. This amount can only be claimed at the end of the contract period if the contractor takes advantage of fair opportunity by proposing on at least one Task Order, within the Technical Areas for which the Contractor received award, offered to the contractor during the years for which the contractor is eligible.
If the Prime Contract is an IDIQ task order contract, is there any authority that would require that the team subcontracts also have to be IDIQ task order? Our team subcontractors were proposed IAW FAR 9.601(2).