Jump to content

Ordering Period of IDIQ Task Order Contract


diverdave

Recommended Posts

The requirement is for a civilian agency for laboratory analysis services whereby the contractor will be provided chemical samples and will perform various analysis on those chemicals and provide a variety of reports. The anticipated contract type is FFP IDIQ with a min/max dollar amount. Task orders will be issued as an ordering mechanism, and the work ordered on those TOs is anticipated to last more than one year. Not all of the TOs will have the same POP. Some might last 2 years and some might last 4 years, it depends on the amount of samples and nature of the reports. It will be a completion contract.

After discussions with the program office, I believe the best contract structure is an IDIQ contract with an ordering period of 5 years (no option periods). The TOs will have option periods and POPs based on the nature the SOW of the TO.

This is not a Requirements contract and I am not buying known quantities so I believe the proposed contract would be a Multiple Year and not Multi-Year contract (FAR 17.104(a)). In terms of ordering period, FAR 16.501-1 and 16.504 both say ?during the period of the contract? or ?during a specific period of time? but remain silent on the limitations on the duration of the period. The contract will not be longer than 5 years so the various limits on exceeding 5 years is not at issue here.

My question is, can you have a multiple year FFP IDIQ Task Order contract with an ordering period of 5 years (no option periods) and issue Task Orders against that contract which contain option periods in a civilian agency? I see nothing in the FAR, U.S.C., or Agency regulations precluding this contract structure, but I also see nothing specifically speaking to the allowable duration of this structure. Interestingly, DFAR 217.204 (e)(i)(A) seems to be clear in stating ?(A) May be for any period up to 5 years?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
My question is, can you have a multiple year FFP IDIQ Task Order contract with an ordering period of 5 years (no option periods) and issue Task Orders against that contract which contain option periods in a civilian agency?

I interpret your question as asking whether you can issue an order that contains options that would extend the order's period of performance beyond the five-year ordering period. Except for agency or office-specific limitations, I think the answer is yes. I know of nothing in statute or FAR that would prohibit it. The contract ordering period and order performance periods need not end on the same date,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern,

The contract would include clause INDEFINITE QUANTITY (FAR 52.216-22) (OCT 1995), with paragraph (d) specifying the number of days beyond the contract expiration date that deliverables could be received. I thought that one could enter up to 365 days in that clause, essentially turning the contract into a 6 year contract. However, extending past 5 years is not the basis for my question and that is not the issue here.

There is some disagreement in my office as to whether the Ordering Period of the base contract structure that I explained could be for a period of more than one year and up to 5 years and not have option periods. Some people in my office seem to think that you must have option periods in an IDIQ contract that is longer than 1 year and that you cannot have a base ordering period of 5 years with no options. The rates or fixed price of each contract year would obviously increase each year by some escalation factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

There is no prohibition in statute or regulation against an IDIQ contract with an 5-year ordering period sans options. Why do the others think you need options?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern,

I have not been given a compelling argument against not having options, just a mention of concerns about a multi-year contracts and appropriations violations. I do understand the confusion about multi-year/multiple year contracts, it is a difficult subject. I think the GAO case that C Culham posted is about as clear and understandable an explanation as I've seen (thanks for that). I think it is clear that this is a multiple year contract.

I suspect the resistance is coming more from never having done it this way before, rather than from a regulations-based standpoint.

Thanks for the input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...