New Award Before Final Option Exercised

[EJB_FederalCO]

I would like to get some advice and opinions on a possible unique scenario we are facing in our Acquisition office. The program office wants to recompete and award a new IDIQ contract to incorporate changes that cannot be put into the current IDIQ contract. Also, due to the nature of the services, a minimum overlap of 18 months is recommended between the contracts. There is still an unexercised option period of 3 years available on the current contract, which is not due to be exercised for a couple years. Award of the new IDIQ contract is projected to happen before then. If the final option period is not exercised, there could be less than the minimum recommended 18-month overlap available. So, the plan is to exercise the final option period. Besides excessive duplication (more than 3 years) and increased contract administration effort, what other issues or legal ramifications might there be if we awarded the new IDIQ contract before exercising the final option period on the current IDIQ contract? Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely, EJB_FederalCO

[ji20874]

You want an 18-month period where you will issue task orders under both the old and the new IDIQ contracts, right?

[EJB_FederalCO]

The process from project initiation to task order award takes an average of 18 months. Thus, projects already initiated under the existing (old) IDIQ contract before the 18 month overlap, would be awarded under the old IDIQ during that time. Any new projects initiated during those 18 months would fall under the terms and conditions of the new IDIQ and thus awarded under the new, if they reach that stage during the overlap.

If the overlap is shorter, there would be a lull in activity where no new projects are initiated until the new IDIQ contract is in place. On the other hand, if the overlap is longer, then there is a possibility of choosing either the old IDIQ or the new IDIQ terms to follow and award under.

[wvanpup]

I am not sure I understand the terminology. What is project initiation and what does it have to do with the contract under which the project is awarded?

I have seen overlapping single award IDIQs (for legacy aircraft platforms) in the following situation. Contract #1 has an ordering period (picking dated at random) from 1 May 2010 through 30 April 2014. Orders cannot require performance beyond 30 April 2016. Contract #2 has an ordering period from 1 May 2013 through 30 April 2017, and orders cannot require performance beyond 30 April 2019. If we need to issue an order in the overlap period (May 13 through April 14), we issue under contract #1 if performance can be completed by 30 April 16 and contract #2 if performance extends beyond then.

That does not seem to be your situation. Regardless of whether project initiation is identification of a requirement, issuance of an RFP, or something else unrelated to when performance must be completed, it seems strange to me that it dictates the contract under which the delivery/task order is issued.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

He asked:

[W]hat other issues or legal ramifications might there be if we awarded the new IDIQ contract before exercising the final option period on the current IDIQ contract?

He wants to have overlapping task order contracts for the same work to ensure there are no gaps in ordering periods. He has an existing contract that will expire, but that includes an extension option that has not yet been exercised. He is about to award a successor contract to a different firm. He wants to know if awarding the successor contract before exercising the extension option will create a problem that would make the option unenforceable, thereby leaving a gap in coverage.