AE IDIQ Task Order Procedures

[Tony2018]

My agency has a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) with let's say 25 AE Firms.  For projects under $250k, Is it possible to have the engineers review the SF330s on file for each task order and then provide a list of the top three ranked and then begin negotiating with the top ranked firm without holding discussions?  The FAR is clear on what to do when selecting an AE firm using the short selection process, but I don't see where an IDIQ is considered after the firms have all been determined qualified at the parent contract level.  Or, are we still required to hold discussions with the interested AE firms to rank them before negotiations?   

[Vern Edwards]

1 hour ago, Tony2018 said:

My agency has a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) with let's say 25 AE Firms.  For projects under $250k, Is it possible to have the engineers review the SF330s on file for each task order and then provide a list of the top three ranked and then begin negotiating with the top ranked firm without holding discussions?  The FAR is clear on what to do when selecting an AE firm using the short selection process, but I don't see where an IDIQ is considered after the firms have all been determined qualified at the parent contract level.  Or, are we still required to hold discussions with the interested AE firms to rank them before negotiations?   

See FAR 16.505(a)(9):

Quote

(9) In accordance with section 1427(b) of Public Law 108-136 ( 40 U.S.C. 1103 note), orders placed under multi-agency contracts for services that substantially or to a dominant extent specify performance of architect-engineer services, as defined in 2.101, shall—(i) Be awarded using the procedures at subpart 36.6; and (ii) Require the direct supervision of a professional architect or engineer licensed, registered or certified in the State, Federal District, or outlying area, in which the services are to be performed.

See also FAR 36.600.

As I read the FAR, you can use any method you like to place an order unless your MATOC is a multi-agency contract (MAC, see the definition in FAR 2.101), consistent with any rules and procedures prescribed by your own agency. I don't think FAR requires that you hold discussions with the interested AE firms to rank them before negotiations with a selectee. 

But you'd better make sure that what you plan to do is consistent with the terms of the contract. And you'd better check with your boss and agency counsel.

If your MATOC is a MAC, then you must comply with FAR subpart 36.6.

Remember, the placement of an order under a MATOC cannot be protested unless it exceeds the applicable dollar threshold in FAR 16.505(a)(10).

Joel Hoffman might have something to say about this.

[C Culham]

2 hours ago, Tony2018 said:

My agency has a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) with let's say 25 AE Firms.  For projects under $250k, Is it possible to have the engineers review the SF330s on file for each task order and then provide a list of the top three ranked and then begin negotiating with the top ranked firm without holding discussions?  The FAR is clear on what to do when selecting an AE firm using the short selection process, but I don't see where an IDIQ is considered after the firms have all been determined qualified at the parent contract level.  Or, are we still required to hold discussions with the interested AE firms to rank them before negotiations?   

To the references already cited in this thread I see no exception in FAR part 36, where FAR subpart 36.602-3(c) for evaluation of an A-E is not applicable to an A-E procurement of any value.

As a matter of reality it would seem that every procurement under a A-E MATOC would demand varied and specific expertise.   I note this as 36.602-3(c) states - " Hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services."   With my emphasis added I would suggest that with technical expertise being the selection process that concepts and alternatives sorted out is important to selecting an A-E firm everytime.

[Vern Edwards]

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

With my emphasis added I would suggest that with technical expertise being the selection process that concepts and alternatives sorted out is important to selecting an A-E firm everytime.

@C CulhamAre you saying that discussions are required or that they would be a good thing to do?

If you're saying that they're required when ordering under a non-MAC MATOC, then I disagree.

If you're saying that they're a good thing to do, then I leave that to the OP. It never hurts to talk.

[C Culham]

18 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Are you saying that discussions are required or that they would be a good thing to do?

Required. I can be swayed by references.

For consideration 

 

[Vel]

I believe that FAR 16.500(d) answers this, by saying that the placement of orders must be "consistent" with the procedures at 36.6. For NAVFAC, our internal procedures require HQ approval before establishing multiple award IDIQs for AE services, so they are rare; but once they are established the procedures states: Contract task order requirements must be competed using a streamlined A-E selection process. Once a multiple award contract is awarded, any decision not to compete a task order requirement must be approved by the appropriate Competition Advocate.

In practice, at my prior command, we submitted the SAES and the selection critieria for the individual task orders to all firms and provided them an opportunity to submit an addendum to their (previously submitted) SF330 to address the specific requirements of the project and the evaluation criteria (in lieu of actual verbal discussions). We then negotiated the price with the most highly qualified firm. 

The basic contracts did list these ordering procedures.

[Vern Edwards]

6 hours ago, C Culham said:

Required. I can be swayed by references.

@C CulhamI provided references: 16.505(a)(9) and 36.600. I'm out of ammo.

Vel has described a good streamlined approach used by an office of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

[C Culham]

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@C CulhamI provided references: 16.505(a)(9) and 36.600. I'm out of ammo.

Vel has described a good streamlined approach used by an office of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Agreed. 

A read of the reference  I provided with my response to you would show that I think we are on the same track.   It brought FAR 16.500(d) into play which is noted by Vel as well along with describing a process used by USACE (that I was familiar with back in the day) that is a play off the Naval process.   I probably erred in the use of "required" but it is a fine line as both the Naval process and USACE use an approach that they consider to be "consistent" with "discussion" of matters regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services.  I do not disagree.

More for the @Tony2018 I guess than you the  Naval and USACE describe a process, and embrace in some manner use of an addendum to the SF-330, that allows through fair opportunity an ability to address and possibly even discuss (in writing on the SF-330) requirements of the specific task order project.  It could even be possible that any addendum to a SF-330 might even generate person to person contact with a contractor.

The key point here with regard to the OP is that you simply do not have  "the engineers review the SF330s on file for each task order and then provide a list of the top three ranked...".  By my read this implies using those on file from the competition of the parent IDIQ and not those amended and sent in for a specific task order.   If using the original parent contract competition SF-330's is what the OP intends then I would offer that there is more to it where one should allow for discussion/addressing matters regarding concepts and relative utility of alternative methods for furnishing the required A-E services intended for a instant task order.

 

[joel hoffman]

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
UPDATED PROCEDURES FOR THE SELECTION OF TASK ORDERS ON A&E ACQUISITIONS
 

https://files.engineers.org/file/USACE-DPM-Guidance-On-AE-Acquisitions-2021-A55D.pdf

https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Eng_Form_6141_2023Jan.pdf?ver=ZLNgEDlZr7WWtVpHaI3Icg%3d%3d

[Tony2018]

Thank you everyone for your assistance.  I'd like to add that a majority of our task orders are under the SAT.  For under the SAT task orders, we've been using the short selection process where the engineers review the SF330s on file without discussions and select the top three firms by ranking them and then we go directly to the top ranked firm to begin negotiating.  We've done this without "discussions" with the rationale that discussions were held for the parent IDIQ.  

[joel hoffman]

Updated USACE A-E IDC and Task order procedures.

https://www.acec.org/default/assets/File/Architect-Engineer (Brooks Act) IDCs%2C Task Order Requirement Notice (TORN)%2C Final Signatures%2C 21 APR 2021.pdf

Edit: just saw Tony 2018’s last post. Would have been nice-to-know info earlier.

I believe that most USACE A-E IDC’s generally have smaller pools, and based upon locality, type of work, contractor size and classification, etc.

Edited March 2, 2023 by joel hoffman