Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'idiq'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 40 results

  1. Sometimes multiple contractors earn spots on Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which allow for an undetermined quantity of supplies or services during a fixed period of time, as outlined in FAR. But what happens when winning contractors have reservations about the competitors who earn contracts alongside them? DaeKee Global Co. found itself in such a situation, and reacted by protesting the terms of the solicitation. Read on to learn how GAO and the COFC responded to such protests, and what this means for contractors concerned about their bedfellows in IDIQ contracts. To read the full article, visit Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  2. In a recent case, the Army got dinged in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) despite – indeed, because of – the agency’s efforts to correct a problematic procurement. 58 offerors bid for the Army’s recompete of its Army Desktop Mobile and Computing contract vehicle, but only 9 proposals were deemed technically acceptable. When 21 of the disqualified bidders protested, the Army took “corrective action.” It reopened the competition, allowing all offerors to submit revised proposals and new prices. But the COFC found that the proposed corrective measure was overbroad. The court’s ruling demonstrates that agencies need to tailor corrective action to procurement’s unique problems. To read the full article, visit Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
  3. Multiple Award IDIQ

    Three multiple award IDIQs were awarded a few years ago to procure systems for testing and possible deployment if it passed testing requirements. The agency intended to compete among the multiple awardees to determine which systems to deploy. It turns out only one awardee passed testing, so the agency closed out the contracts with the awardees who had products that did not pass testing. Given there is only one contract to order supplies and services, is this contract still considered a multiple award contract? I'm trying to determine if I need to execute a justification to procure using exception to fair opportunity or not when placing an order under the IDIQ with the awardee who did pass testing. It's been recommended I complete one just in case, but I'm not convinced it's necessary since there are no other awardees to give fair opportunity to. Appreciate your thoughts and insight in advance.
  4. Hello all, I am looking to re-compete a FAR 16 IDIQ, most likely a "requirements contract." It is for supplies, Firm-Fixed Price, and after competing, will be a single-award IDIQ. I have a question for input regarding the Period of Performance (POP) limitations. Is there any reason why the IDIQ cannot have a five-year straight period of performance with an overall ceiling? The FAR references that task/delivery orders are generally five-years with options but I found no reference regarding direction when setting up the POP for the over-arching IDIQ. Has anyone had experience with these? I'd prefer a straight POP avoiding the need to exercise options when we know we will be using this particular supply.
  5. Good morning and happy holidays WIFCON! I’ve been reading these forums/blogs since I started in Federal contracting as a Copper Cap (just over two years now) and have gained a ton of valuable knowledge and viewpoints, this really is an amazing resource for contracting knowledge. Over the past year I’ve started working large dollar service contracts and have found myself in a position where I’ve had to develop IDIQ pricing tables for RFPs twice now. I’ve gone through the CPRG and found it useful but not in the way I’m looking for, it's more what to do what the numbers once you have them than what to do before you get them. I very much enjoy this type of work and it seems like there’s a lack of know-how around me in this area. I’d like to think I’m pretty good with excel, I can use tables/pivot tables/named ranges/advanced formulas and code in VBA to an extent. It was simple when all I had to do was make a spreadsheet for supplies, but with all the variables from services and IDIQ type contracts it’s getting more challenging (and fun). Bottom line: I’d like to know what techniques/courses/resources/templates/books etc anyone would recommend for learning more about things such as developing pricing tables and proposal modeling. I'd also like to know what your opinion is on using MS Access for this type of work. Thank you all for your contributions to this site and all the knowledge you’ve already passed on to me!
  6. How would you recommend working with government to hold the prime accountable on a full and open/unrestricted IDIQ contract, that has a goal, but not a requirement for the prime to include small business/sub-contractors in work share? Do you know of any previous contracts where this situation occurred? Without the government requiring the prime to include work share for sub-contractors, and only goals, it is going to be very difficult to find any prime that is willing to split their work share. Any advice, or examples of previous contracts that held prime's accountable for small business/sub-contractor participation goals would be highly appreciated!
  7. I am currently working on a sole-source IDIQ. I have solicited multiple fixed price supply items (non-commercial). My RFP includes range pricing and a Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) /Annual Demand Value (ADV). The BEQ/ADV is based upon forecast data provided by the customer tempered with common sense and buy history. For Instance: A CLIN on my RFP may look something like this 0001AA Antenna Widget Quantity Range 100-190 (BEQ/ADV – 150) 191-200 201-270 I expect discreet pricing for all ranges, for all years of the contract (5 in this instance). My solicitation/RFP requires a FAR 15.408 table 15-2 compliant proposal. I state specifically that cost analysis must be performed by the offeror for subcontracts identified in the CBOM as having total proposed pricing that exceeds the regulatory threshold indicated in FAR Part 15.403-4 AND that Fair and reasonable subcontractor analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b) shall be provided. My Question: What is the basis of the threshold for subcontract Cost Analysis (CAPA) for an IDIQ contract? Is it based on the max quantity you anticipate buying or the estimated quantity you believe you will buy…The BEQ/ADV or the Max? In the example above, would you base the threshold on unit price x qty of 270 OR unit price x qty of 270…obviously very simplistic because on some of these RFP’s there are hundreds of items. I ask this because I interpret the subcontractor CAPA threshold as being the anticipated maximum value of the contract (max value for all solicited items IDIQ). The problem is that we are asking for ranges above what we historically buy, because our customer anticipates that there could be a need for those higher quantities. Contractors raise concerns on ROI and provide long lead time for proposal development when they interpret the RFP in that manner. I believe there truly is a case to be made for limiting the CAPA threshold to what we plan to buy (ADV/BEQ), but do have concerns that high dollar value subcontracts will go unchallenged. Regardless of the CAPA threshold, contractors would still be required to provide subcontractor pricing for all ranges and typically provide a high % of firm quotes with their bid. I would also like to add some additional context. I make a thorough evaluation of the ADV/BEQ we use and remove ranges (especially high ranges) when I have no reason to believe the Government will have a need to buy at that high a quantity. Interested in your thoughts on the topic.
  8. I issued a request for pricing for a sole source single award IDIQ contract for services with a five year ordering period. In Section B the contract required fully burdened labor rates for each year of the contract to be used for T&M type orders and FFP type orders. The contractor refuses to provide fully burdened rates for FFP orders stating labor rates are not relevant to the FFP contract value and this approach places significant risk to the contractor. They also argue this approach is not aligned with FAR since they cannot provide a certificate of current cost and pricing data for applicable orders when using out year rates that may be different from actual current labor rates at the time of placing an order. I don't understand what the difference is between establishing labor rates for any contract type and establishing rates in a FPRA. Their position that the labor rates are not relevant to the total value is not totally sound to me as the established rates would be used against the contractor's proposed level of effort that would build to the total FFP value. All GSA Schedules have burdened rates used when developing FFP orders and I've also seen this done on BPAs. I offered to negotiate separate T&M rates from the FFP rates because to me the only difference is profit but this was still unsatisfactory. I don't understand why this is a hard pressed issue for the contractor. I think this is a standard practice to negotiate labor rates for up to five years as is done with GSA and DCMA. Is there any reason why it's not appropriate to negotiate fully burdened rates for FFP orders? Is the contractor's claim about certified cost and pricing data true?
  9. 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.
  10. I have an Non-Appropriated Purchasing Agreement (NPA) for Title II Services with the following Period of Performance: Option Year 2: 20 July 2015 through 19 July 2016 Option Year 3: 20 July 2016 through 19 July 2017 There will be a delivery order awarded against the NPA within the next few weeks, so we will be using the option year 2 pricing. The contractor is trying to incorporated "escalation pricing" in his proposal so when the option is exercised on the NPA (next month), the pricing for the order will "automatically" go into affect the same day. The period of performance on the order for Title II Services will be 365 days. The NAFI has already informed the contractor that the order will only incorporate Option Year 2 pricing for the entire duration of the 356 days and will not be changed unless there is a change to the current period of performance (ie. an extension to the order extending it past the 365 days). The contractor is arguing that other delivery orders were issued using this escalated pricing method with other agencies. Is there a statue stating an order placed against an NPA or IDIQ will need to maintain the current base or option year pricing throughout the life of the order?
  11. I support a program with contracts defined as firm-fixed price (FFP), labor hour (LH), time and material (TM), indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) with economic price adjustments from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)/ wage determinations (WDs). The contracts were awarded under FAR 15 with adequate price competition. Due to some security aspects in the SOW the effort is considered non-commercial and agency described as design/detail. Historically, the program has considered these contracts exempt from Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) per the exempted category (15) below, as there was always adequate price competition and they have not collected cost or pricing data with the offers. Is this interpretation correct? (b) The following categories of contracts and subcontracts are exempt from all CAS requirements: (1) Sealed bid contracts (2) Negotiated contracts and subcontracts not in excess of $500,000. For purposes of this paragraph (b)2 an order issued by one segment to another segment shall be treated as a subcontract (3) Contracts and subcontracts with small businesses. (4) Contracts and subcontracts with foreign governments or their agents or instrumentalities or, insofar as the requirements of CAS other than 9904.401 and 9904.402 are concerned, any contract or subcontract awarded to a foreign concern. (5) Contracts and subcontracts in which the price is set by law or regulation. (6) Firm fixed priced and fixed price with economic price adjustment (provided that the price adjustment is not based on actual costs incurred) contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (7) Contracts or subcontracts of less than $7.5 million, provided that, at the time of award, the business unit of the contractor or subcontractor is not currently performing any CAS-covered contracts of subcontracts valued at $7.5 million or greater. (8-11) [Reserved] (12) Contracts and subcontracts awarded to the United Kingdom contractor for performance substantially in the United Kingdom, provided that the contractor has filed with the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, for retention by the Ministry, a completed Disclosure Statement (Form No. CASB-DS-1) which shall adequately describe its cost accounting practices. Whenever that contractor is already required to follow U.K. Government Accounting Conventions, the disclosed practices shall be in accord with the requirements of those conventions. (See 9903.201-4(d).) (13) Subcontractors under the NATO PHM Ship program to be performed outside the United States by a foreign concern. (14) Contracts and subcontracts to be executed and performed entirely outside the United States, its territories, and possessions (15) Firm fixed price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of cost or pricing data.
  12. I have a question regarding a recently posted RFP for a multiple award, ID/IQ. I believe my question is related to a WIFCON post from 2012, so I wanted to included it here: However, there are a few differences 1. This is a multiple award ID/IQ with a Full and Open suite and a Small Business set aside suite. (LPTA) 2. Instead of the Agency providing a sample task order or estimated quantities with the RFP as a baseline, the offeror is to provide labor rates (on/off site) for a set number of Labor Categories (provided by the Agency). Then, the Agency is going to apply estimated labors hours for each year of contract performance to each offeror's labor rate/category based on site location. The estimated labor hours used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the offerors until after award. Question: Is this method of evaluation considered reasonable? The offeror doesn't know what it's total evaluated price will be until after award is made.
  13. In light of a recent protest (WIFCON link http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/4114813.pdf, docket B-411481.3 dated 6 January 2016) regarding a task order issued off a Federal Supply Schedule, I've heard chatter from legal advisors that the clause at FAR 52.216-22 doesn't set the effective date of the IDIQ. Consequently, they argue that clause cannot be a mechanism by which a task order featuring option years can be performed for years beyond the end of the ordering period. This interpretation seems entirely contradictory to the specific language featured in FAR 52.216-22. The clause in the IDIQ in question cuts paragraph (d) short, omitting the date fill-in. GSA's ordering guide places the following restriction on task orders which use options (emphasis supplied by the GAO) Interestingly, GSA has revised their ordering guides within the last two weeks to put an end to the issue this portion of the protest encountered: https://interact.gsa.gov/document/important-update-new-mas-refresh-mass-modification-changes-february-2016-streamline Researching WIFCon, I've found relevant discussions. Here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1665-task-orders-that-extend-beyond-base-contract-pop/#comment-14003 Vern's invaluable blog post at http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/644-those-pesky-idiq-contracts-again/ provided some excellent reading, but nothing that corresponds with what I am hearing from legal counsel. Another discussion seems to predate the fateful action which triggered the protest in question: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1768-gsa-to-with-options-beyond-k-period/ Based on the buzzings, it seems as though legal counsel is applying the restrictions imposed by GSA onto DOD contracting officers. Legal counsel has argued that: 1. The effective period may end prior to the ordering period; 2. The date of FAR 52.216-22(d) is NOT relevant to the IDIQ's effective period; 3. The contract's effective date is the same as the IDIQ's ordering period 4. The date if FAR 52.216-22(d) is only relevant to the performance period for delivery under a Task Order and thus cannot be construed to include options under that performance; 5. Inclusion of the date in FAR 52.216-22(d) would not have changed GAO's analysis of the protest in question; and 6. Task orders are not stand alone contracts and once an IDIQ has expired (rendering the contract "no longer effective), the delivery under a Task Order is irrelevant. Summarily, legal counsel is strongly criticizing the idea of setting an IDIQ's "effective date" by way of the fill-in text in FAR 52.216-22. In fact, I am lead to expect this "ruling" by the various legal offices will impact DOD contracts significantly, requiring contracting officers to come up with a variety of complex "work-arounds". Is there something I never learned or never understood with regards how FAR 52.216-22 works? EDIT: Made a clarification.
  14. I awarded a ID/IQ contract to three contractors in February '15. We have awarded task orders to two of the three contractors to satisfy the minimum, however, based on the forecast, it is possible that the third contractor might not have the minimum satisfied in the current fiscal year (15/16). To determine our next steps, there have been multiple discussions between contracting officers, legal and branch chiefs. I am a new contracting officer and this is the first task order contract I have administered. I suggested using the fair opportunity exception at FAR 16.505 (b ) (2)(i)(D) to sole source a TO in order to satisfy the minimum. My team leader reviewed my stance and responded as follows: "Seems to me your options are limited. Because the awards were made in FY 15 the Bonafide Need rule requires that the funds available at the time of award FY 15/16 being retained under each contract (whether on the contract or task order). The issue at hand is one of the Agency getting use out of its obligated funds and should be distinguished from a case of needing to satisfy our minimum commitment to the contractor (which does not arise until the ordering period expiries. 1. Satisfying our Appropriation Rule on Bonafide Need We need to maintain 15/16 funding under each contract, whether under the contract itself of under an issued TO that may extend beyond the funds availability for obligation, but will be supportive of the BN at the time of issuance. TO with performance periods stretching beyond the availability of FY 15/16 funds while this appropriation is available would preserve the BN supporting the underlying contract. If we issue a TO using 16/17 funds, we would meet our contractual obligation to the contract holder, but we would still have to keep the funds obligated at award (15/16 funds) on the contracts and to do so otherwise would result in a violation of the BNR, as we would have failed to support the BN for what the contract was procuring. " Legal went further to state: A sole source task order under the exception to FAR 16.505 (b )(2)(i)(D) cannot be issued. The contract POP is 5 years. Therefore, approximately 4 years remain of the POP, while approximately 7 months remain prior to the end of the fiscal year. Consequently, there is enough time for the contract holder in question to receive additional competitive task order awards sufficient to liquidate the balance of the minimum amount obligated to the contract at the time of the award. Neither the FAR guidance nor any of the clauses included in the contract provide for an exception to the "fair opportunity to compete" for task orders that would facilitate the reduction of the outstanding minimum balance and avoid the expiration of the FY funds placed on the contract at the time of award. Furthermore, failure to issue a task order to the contractor in question under which 15/16 funds can be used, does not mean the money is "lost" per se, What it does mean is that , if the Agency does not issue any task orders to the contract holder in question between now and the end of the ordering period, those FY 15/16 funds will still be available to liquidate whatever portion of the minimum is due and owing to the contract holder in question. As to how that amount is calculated, I direct your attention to the CAFC case White v. Delta Construction International, Inc., 285 F.3d 1040. What that means is: The contractor in question would only be due payment of an amount that reflected the delta between the costs it would have incurred had the minimum amount been satisfied in total, given indirect costs and profit. So. I have two questions: 1. How does White V. Delta overrule the Government from fulfilling its obligation under 52.216-22? 2. Why would the use of the fair opportunity exception at FAR 16.505( b ) (2) (i)(D) to sole source a TO in order to satisfy the minimum not apply? I would think the potential to violate the BNR would be even more of a reason to sole source.
  15. I am starting to question all my training over the years on awarding a Multiple Award IDIQ and questioning the purpose of issuing a Draft Task Order (TO) as a sample for Offerors to propose towards in awarding a MA/IDIQ. Why not save time and issue a final TO that will be awarded to the vendor that proposal is the best value to the government? Therefore, the MA/IDIQ and TO 1 would be awarded essentially awarded at the same time and potentially lead to better pricing.... I am used to issuing a draft task order, and then soliciting the draft as a final TO a few days after the MA/IDIQ has been awarded. Why not save time/paperwork and do it all at one time?
  16. Hello fellow contracting seniors, I am building a FFP IDIQ logistics support services contract with the intention to issue multiple IDIQ awards. The IGCE for the base year is estimated to be $10Mil and I intend to write the MAC with 4 one year options. I understand that I can do without a minimum guarantee CLIN however with such high dollar value solicitation out at the streets expecting prospective contractors to bid on it; it does seems to be of a necessity. My question in my mind is how do I determine the amount of the minimum guarantee for this MAC? My case has 29 geographical locations around South-East Asia and the Federated States of Micronesia, which I need contracting support but not all locations have the same amount of logistics requirement that also relates to the same IGCE, for example Pohnpei Island is having an estimate of 1.2Mil per year whereas the other extreme Brunei is having only a mere estimate of $900 per year. A little background of myself; I'm a junior contract specialist (OCONUS) with only a mere 3 years of Government contracting whom is continuously learning. Hope to have some insight and advice from all contracting professionals out there and greatly appreciate it. Very Respectfully, Camp Henry
  17. Hi, We have a multiple award IDIQ that we will be preparing a solicitation under (someone told me these arent called RFTOPs anymore, is this true?). Our technical team would like the prime to partner with a certain specific organization as a sub. This organization would likely be eligible for sole sourcing according to the the FAR or our assistance guidelines if we were contracting with them directly. I suggested we do that, but the technical team feels that the management burden of dealing with this sub would be too much for their office to handle. I just wanted to get some opinions on whether this is possible or if there is a specific way to structure this that would make it feasible. Instinctually, I feel that this violates the Fair Opportunity procedures and the rules of competition. The only thing in the FAR that was remotely on point that I could find was FAR 44.203 (B )(3) does not allow any subcontracts that obligate the CO to deal directly with the contractor. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
  18. I am helping a colleague put together a solicitation for a commercial IDIQ solicitation. Specifically, I have been tasked with putting together the clauses and provisions for the solicitation. FAR Subpart 12.3 is somewhat misleading (or, I am not reading it correctly, which is entirely possible) on the subject of using clauses and provisions other than the five 52.212 clauses/provisions. I am fully aware that clauses such as 52.216-19 and -22 can and should apply; however, I'm fuzzy on the other clauses that could apply (that is, "required when applicable") in an IDIQ situation. If this topic has been addressed somewhere other than this designated forum, please feel free to post the link and delete this topic. Thank you!
  19. 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?
  20. I'm looking to see if there is a "right" or even "best" answer out there. Background: 100% single-award, IDIQ contract comprised completely of (multiple) CPAF task orders and 52.232-22 is incorporated at the contract level (for administrative purposes, funding is at the contract level and not the individual task order level). With the above facts, lets say that the contractor is overrunning some orders and underrunning others, but the net is an underrun. Would the steps for overrunning in 52.232-22 apply? Meaning, is the contractor accountable at the task order level (and TO overruns require additional allotment by the CO to complete work) or at the contract level (where there is no overrun). Thanks all. I appreciate the advice and guidance. (Sorry if this has been discussed previously. I searched and didn't see anything with the above fact pattern.)
  21. I am working on a competitive 8(a) set aside MATOC source selection. One of the questions posted to ASFI asked about what recourse the Government has if the contractor was awarded an IDIQ contract, but decided not to respond to some of the Request For Task Order Proposals in the future. I wasn't sure how to answer this question. There is currently language in the solicitation that the contractor must contact the Government immediately if they cannot propose, but no explanation of what happens if they don't. Does anyone have experience with this? The pool of awardee's is only expected to be 3, so it will be important to have all awardee propose on each task order.
  22. A termination fee is pre-negotiated into an IDIQ contract. The fee addresses the contractor’s entitlements in the event the Government fails to order the contract’s minimum guarantee (FAR 16.504(a )(1) and (2)). What is the extent of the government’s liability? The termination fee? The minimum guarantee? If you don't believe the termination fee is sufficient, why not?
  23. I would like to get some advice and opinions on a possible unique scenario we are facing in our Acquisition office. The program office wants to recompete and award a new IDIQ contract to incorporate changes that cannot be put into the current IDIQ contract. Also, due to the nature of the services, a minimum overlap of 18 months is recommended between the contracts. There is still an unexercised option period of 3 years available on the current contract, which is not due to be exercised for a couple years. Award of the new IDIQ contract is projected to happen before then. If the final option period is not exercised, there could be less than the minimum recommended 18-month overlap available. So, the plan is to exercise the final option period. Besides excessive duplication (more than 3 years) and increased contract administration effort, what other issues or legal ramifications might there be if we awarded the new IDIQ contract before exercising the final option period on the current IDIQ contract? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, EJB_FederalCO
  24. I have been unable to find anything supporting this approach, nor have I found anything actually prohibiting it. I would like to canvass the professionals out there in the event someone has experience one way or the other: Contract will include FFP (fully-funded) Base CLINs, with option periods of performance (up to five years). Contract also will include FFP IDIQ CLINs for supplemental support hours (just in case). Question: Must IDIQ CLIN be associated with each period of performance, have min guarantee/max estimate, and be exercised each year? Or, can IDIQ CLIN be exercised with minimum guarantee at base award and remain open for use throughout the life of the contract? (subject to getting a firm fixed price for this lengthy period). Any feedback, lessons learned, gentle guidance, or good jokes will be appreciated. E
×