.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'far 16.5'.
Found 4 results
-
Newish CO here. I am pre-award with an IDIQ that will have a BOM for a bunch of contractor-provisioned IT COTS hardware (maybe 100 different items, up to $80K unit price). These IT materials are from a dynamic market. Prices, models, features all change quickly. I am being asked by management to get 5-year pricing at the unit level for everything, and incorporate that pricing into the IDIQ. To me, this is a bad idea and a waste of time. My question to you all is - am I right in my assessment? Am I missing something? I see nothing in FAR 16.5 requiring any pricing of any type at the IDIQ level. Pricing and price analysis occurs at the order level. I understand that ceiling unit prices can be established by the IDIQ and found fair and reasonable, so that orders with unit prices at or below those levels are also fair and reasonable automatically, and this greatly speeds up the procurement process. However, this is predicated upon the assumption that the unit prices and things being priced will be stable over time. For example, carpenters and database administrators exist now and are reasonably likely to exist five years from now, and their hourly rates aren't going to change very much between now and then. This is not the case with IT hardware. Basically everything on the IDIQ's BOM has a lifecycle of less than 5 years and prices will change quickly, and by a lot. Also, new stuff comes onto market all the time. So why bother with IDIQ level pricing, you are going to have to do the price analysis per order anyways? If you know now, before award, that the IDIQ unit pricing will be obsolete and therefore can't be used for price analysis in the future, why bother having it? I know I will not win this battle with management, so this is for my personnel edification.
-
Would love some input here from any knowledgeable folks about this. If an agency intends to issue a single solicitation for multiple A-E services IDIQ contracts, is that a "multiple award" as defined under FAR 16.505 and does the fair opportunity process apply at the task order level? FAR 16.5 exempts AE IDC's from the statutory multiple award preference, I get that. And the Brooks A-E Act as implemented by FAR 36.6 applies, i get that too. But by logic, if one solicitation results in multiple IDC's it seems that's a "multiple award" situation. And as for Fair Opportunity, I'd think the most appropriate COA would be to articulate in the synopsis how the agency will provide fair opportunity at the task order level by selecting the best A-E for each particulat task order SOW (using competency/qualifications criteria not price). In my experience this issue is consistently something that is discussed inconclusively, since, to me at least, the FAR is a bit convoluted on the topic. The DFARS used to have instruction under citation 216.505-70 (it was ¶(a)(4) I believe) that specificially exempted A-E contracts from fair opportunity under the IDIQ ordering process--however sometime in 2012 or 2013 that content was removed. The USACE's Architect-Engineering Contracting Guide (EP 715-1-7), which was updated in 2012 states at page 4-9 that the Contracting Officer must document the file as to why a particular contractor is selected. Although that's not policy that applies to any non-USACE contracting agencies, they are considered to be one of the premiere A-E contracting agencies across the federal Government. The EP also provides a standard synopsis template (appendix O) that states verbatim, "If multiple IDCs, state method to be used to allocate task orders among contracts when two or more IDCs contain the same or similar scopes of work such that a particular task order might be awarded under more than one IDC. See FAR 16.505 for guidance." Anyone have any experience with this issue? -
Ignoring whether or not agency should have used this vehicle, agency establishes multiple IDIQ contracts with FSS holders under FAR Subpart 8.4. The award of IDIQ contracts would seem to bring FAR Subpart 16.5 into play. Agency then issues a request for quotations by issuing a solicitation to all the IDIQ holders. While it seems clear that a procurement under FAR Subpart 8.4 does not involve the use of competitive proposals (see Millennium Space Systems, Inc., B-406771, August 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 237), it appears unsettled whether the use of an IDIQ contract vehicle transform the procurement from one involving other competitive procedures to one making the use of competitive proposals. The FAR generally links competitive proposals language directly to FAR Part 15 (see FAR 6.102( B ), but a nexus is created in FAR 16.505( B )(4) wherein is mandated that FAR 15.506 procedures be followed for postaward debriefings. And, just to muddy the waters a bit more, the FAR is explicitly clear that “responses to requests for quotation (simplified acquisition) are ‘quotations,’ not offers” while “responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called ‘proposals.’” FAR § 2.101 (under “Offer”). And, as that same provision explains, an offer “means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract.” Id. Thus, according to the FAR, there is a clear and unalterable distinction between “quotations” (where no contract is formed by its submission) and “proposals” (where the submission binds the offeror and a contract results). So here is the question: Is a FAR Subpart 8.4 procurement that utilizes IDIQ contracts under FAR Subpart 16.5 a procurement on the basis of competitive proposals?
-
Ignoring whether or not agency should have used this vehicle, agency establishes multiple IDIQ contracts with FSS holders under FAR Subpart 8.4. The award of IDIQ contracts would seem to bring FAR Subpart 16.5 into play. Agency then issues a request for quotations by issuing a solicitation to all the IDIQ holders. While it seems clear that a procurement under FAR Subpart 8.4 does not involve the use of competitive proposals (see Millennium Space Systems, Inc., B-406771, August 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 237), it appears unsettled whether the use of an IDIQ contract vehicle transform the procurement from one involving other competitive procedures to one making the use of competitive proposals. The FAR generally links competitive proposals language directly to FAR Part 15 (see FAR 6.102( B )), but a nexus is created in FAR 16.505( B )(4) wherein is mandated that FAR 15.506 procedures be followed for postaward debriefings. And, just to muddy the waters a bit more, the FAR is explicitly clear that “responses to requests for quotation (simplified acquisition) are ‘quotations,’ not offers” while “responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called ‘proposals.’” FAR § 2.101 (under “Offer”). And, as that same provision explains, an offer “means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract.” Id. Thus, according to the FAR, there is a clear and unalterable distinction between “quotations” (where no contract is formed by its submission) and “proposals” (where the submission binds the offeror and a contract results). So here is the question: Is a FAR Subpart 8.4 procurement that utilizes IDIQ contracts under FAR Subpart 16.5 a procurement on the basis of competitive proposals?