Bailers Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 I've been unable to find a definition for the word "necessary" when it is referring to an exception to fair opportunity under multiple award IDIQ contracts. Does the ability to exclude vendors from opportunity to propose only apply at the end of a period or can it refer to any period in the contract. To state it plainly, can the exception be used for sole sourcing task orders at the beginning of the contract period to satisfy the minimum guarantee before competitively awarding the rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy_Contracting_4 Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 If you want a definition for the word "necessary," look it up in the dictionary. In the FAR, "ndefined words retain their common dictionary meaning." [FAR 1.108(a).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailers Posted May 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 In my opinion, it's necessary to place an order to satisfy the minimum guarantee at any time the minimum guarantee has not been satisfied. I don't know of any decisions on point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailers Posted May 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Thank you Don, that was my thought as well. In this case it is a large service contract with a base period of three years. Without knowing that we will have funding in years 2 & 3, I believe it is proper to use sole source awards to vendors in year one until the minimum has been met. At which point all future orders would need to be competed under the fair opportunity provisions. Waiting until the end of a period of performance to satisfy the minimum makes me nervous in the shrinking fiscal environment we are currently in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts