Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Prezmil2020

Task Order with One Year POPs and Severable/Nonseverable Type

Recommended Posts

Good Morning,

My acquisition center awarded in September 2009 a T&M commercial task order against a MAS contract for professional and non-professional services. The task order was awarded with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The requesting activity submits to our office work packages that contain the specific work that is to be performed by the contractor and the funding document(s), which we apply to the task order as a modification. Each work package is nonseverable, the government does not gain anything until the contractor has completed the project. However, each project is independent of each other. When the task order was awarded, it was determined that it was severable because each work package is independent of each other and because the requesting activity could not fully fund a nonseverable task order.

The questions I have are:

1. Is the determination of severable or nonseverable based on the individual work that is to be performed (CLINs, work packages, etc.) or is it based on the task order as a whole? If it is based on the task order as a whole, was it correct to determine the task order as severable when each project individually is nonseverable?

2. If the work package is nonseverable and crosses fiscal years, is it correct to fund the work package via modification with current one year funds as long as the obligation is executed before the funds expire and allow work to continue beyond the POP as long as it doesn't exceed 12 months?

For example, Task Order ABC was awarded on 9/1/09 with a one-year base period. The contractor begins work on 9/15/09 on a specific nonseverable project that is funded with FY10 two-year funds. On July 1, 2010 the requesting activity wants the contractor to perform another nonseverable project with an estimated POP of 6 months. The requesting activity fully funds this project based on the contractor's estimate with FY10 one-year funds. Do the one-year funds expire for obligation on 9/30/10 and can work no longer be performed against that MIPR beyond 9/30/10?

Thanks for your input and comments. If further information is necessary, please let me know.

Prezmil2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)

Good Morning,

My acquisition center awarded in September 2009 a T&M commercial task order against a MAS contract for professional and non-professional services. The task order was awarded with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The requesting activity submits to our office work packages that contain the specific work that is to be performed by the contractor and the funding document(s), which we apply to the task order as a modification. Each work package is nonseverable, the government does not gain anything until the contractor has completed the project. However, each project is independent of each other. When the task order was awarded, it was determined that it was severable because each work package is independent of each other and because the requesting activity could not fully fund a nonseverable task order.

The questions I have are:

1. Is the determination of severable or nonseverable based on the individual work that is to be performed (CLINs, work packages, etc.) or is it based on the task order as a whole? If it is based on the task order as a whole, was it correct to determine the task order as severable when each project individually is nonseverable?

2. If the work package is nonseverable and crosses fiscal years, is it correct to fund the work package via modification with current one year funds as long as the obligation is executed before the funds expire and allow work to continue beyond the POP as long as it doesn't exceed 12 months?

For example, Task Order ABC was awarded on 9/1/09 with a one-year base period. The contractor begins work on 9/15/09 on a specific nonseverable project that is funded with FY10 two-year funds. On July 1, 2010 the requesting activity wants the contractor to perform another nonseverable project with an estimated POP of 6 months. The requesting activity fully funds this project based on the contractor's estimate with FY10 one-year funds. Do the one-year funds expire for obligation on 9/30/10 and can work no longer be performed against that MIPR beyond 9/30/10?

Thanks for your input and comments. If further information is necessary, please let me know.

Prezmil2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the key issue here is the PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE. This was established at the task order level. The PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE dictates when the work is to be performed. If the period of performance ends 9/30/2011 (for example), no work should continue. The option period (in this case) would begin a new PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE. Funds obligated in a previous period of performance are for that, specific, period of performance regardless of whether the funds 'can' cross fiscal years or 'can' be used for up to 12 months. We're talking 2 different issues here. In this case, the task order specifies a period of performance. The work obligated in this period is only for that, specific, period of performance, even though the appropriation may be good for 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prezmil2020,

If I'm understanding you correctly, what your agency has done is essentially created an IDIQ contract under an IDIQ contract--presumably to avoid having to compete the actual work to be done. My guess is that you competitively awarded a five-year task order with a very broad scope of work. Then, you issue should-be task orders as modifications to that contractor. Yours is not the only agency that does this. I expect more agencies to engage in these types of practices as more rules on competing task orders are issued. Administratively efficient. Customer is happy. You can report the action as competitive. Hard to say that any rules are being broken, because the rule makers haven't caught up to this practice yet. When they do, we will have more rules on competition, more creativity to avoid those rules, followed by more rules, and so on. You didn't create this situation, you're just trying to do your job. Do I have it right?

If so, I can't answer your questions, because I don't know of any rules that contemplate your situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
My acquisition center awarded in September 2009 a T&M commercial task order against a MAS contract for professional and non-professional services. The task order was awarded with a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. The requesting activity submits to our office work packages that contain the specific work that is to be performed by the contractor and the funding document(s), which we apply to the task order as a modification. Each work package is nonseverable, the government does not gain anything until the contractor has completed the project. However, each project is independent of each other. When the task order was awarded, it was determined that it was severable because each work package is independent of each other and because the requesting activity could not fully fund a nonseverable task order.

The arrangement described by Prezmil2020 has to be one the stupidest I have ever heard of, and that's saying something. If you are going to cook up such an absurd scheme, you should absolutely refrain from asking other people how to manage it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prezmil,

I don't this doesn't help you now, but what wouldn't you orginally just awarded a single source BPA? Then each work package is done with an individual task order under the BPA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,

You are correct that the scope of work was written broadly.

Vern,

Trust me, I agree that if we had to do it all over again the acquisition strategy would be completely different. Nonetheless, this is what we are working with so we are trying to do workarounds while remaining compliant with the rules/regulations/laws.

As I am fairly new to procurement and have few resources at my disposal and colleagues that I trust, I am interested in learning from more experienced/educated boardmembers so future procurements are awarded/administered properly. I know you have written extensively on the lack of a proper training curriculum for 1102s and I am a product of such an insufficient program, ergo why I am reaching out to those who can offer better insight and advice.

Prezmil2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...