dave9062 Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 I am finding several instances, looking at fedbizopps,where A&E services are being announced and the intent is to establish one or more awards under the IDIQ authority of FAR Part 16.5. Several agencies (to remain unidentified) are seeking price proposals from firms who have received awards under IDIQ contract. I believe the confusion comes when contracting personnel read FAR 16.5 and find there is to be a fair opportunity to compete for the individual task orders. HOWEVER, they fail to read that part of the scope statement allowing use of IDIQ for A&E Services, but they miss the exclusion which requires selection to be based on FAR Part 36.6. The A&E selection procedure requires consideration of the professional competencies of the firm. After firms have been evaluated a single firm is selected for contract negotiation. That is when price comes in (task order or single award A&E contract). I find this especially when contract are contemplated for Cadastral Surveys (maybe people forgot that surveying is now covered by FAR Part 36.6). If you have found this occuring, OR if you believe that competitive price proposals are permitted/required....please submit your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 Price cannot be a factor or a selection criterion in a MATOC task order or base ID/IQ contract competition. FAR 16.500 (d) : (d) The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in Subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with Subpart 36.6. This means that, for a an A-E multiple award ID/IQ task order, the Brooks Act procedures in FAR 36.6 must be used to select the most qualified firm and price is then negotiated, where possible. If you can't settle on a fair and reasonable price, you move on to another firm. If the agencies are violating the Brooks Act requirements on a new contract competition, my opinion is that you may protest the terms of the solicitation. If you are a task order contract holder, you may also object to the terms of the task order solicitation. Engage a lawyer for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave9062 Posted December 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 Price cannot be a factor or a selection criterion in a MATOC task order or base ID/IQ contract competition.FAR 16.500 (d) : (d) The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in Subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with Subpart 36.6. This means that, for a an A-E multiple award ID/IQ task order, the Brooks Act procedures in FAR 36.6 must be used to select the most qualified firm and price is then negotiated, where possible. If you can't settle on a fair and reasonable price, you move on to another firm. If the agencies are violating the Brooks Act requirements on a new contract competition, my opinion is that you may protest the terms of the solicitation. If you are a task order contract holder, you may also object to the terms of the task order solicitation. Engage a lawyer for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave9062 Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Joel. I believe that you and I are on the same page as it relates to the propriety of price competition in the award of task orders for A&E services under an ID/IQ contract. However, I see it happening and too often the firms are not aware that price propaosal are being competed OR they would not complain because it creates conflict with the agency doing the acquisition. In the specific situation I identified I contacted an agency representative at the national level and brought the matter to their attention. It would be far better for the agency to correct the problem instead of relying on a protest or a complaint to the Professional Society about the improper practice. Just thougt I would bounce out the issue for others to consider. I find too often that it is not a matter of what is right or wrong according the FAR, it is what some contract specialists (later CO) gets by with. Also in the same procurement I see they are using the SF-1449 form for the acquisiton and issuing SF-1449 as the task orders under the ID/IQ contract. In essence they are acquiring A&E services using FAR Part 12 commercial item acquisition procedures without the proper clauses as well as provisions. The sailing may not be so happy when they are challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I hear you, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts