Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
DWGerard1102

Task order out of scope with the base IDIQ contract?

Recommended Posts

I am looking at a task order statement of work for IT work (programing, debugging, enterprise architecture, etc.) that is planned to be awarded from an environmental remediation ID/IQ contract. The ID/IQ contract does not specify IT work, but does have "data management".

My question is whether or not data management could be stretched to encompass a task order that basically sets up the entire data management infrastructure.

Incidentally, this work was originally completed via a separate 8(a) contract. The focus of the IT service will be to support the remediation, but the actual task order will do no remediation, it will only be to establish an IT system.

I have looked at the case law for this and I was unable to answer this question from those cases. If anyone knows of a specific case that deals with this subject, I would appreciate the case number so that I can look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the proposed IT work is within the general scope of the environmental remediation ID/IQ contract? This is a YES or NO question.

Do you think the proposed IT work should stay 8(a) under the once-8(a)-always-8(a) mindset? This is a YES or NO question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What types of clauses do you have in your contract? Are there any data clauses? Would the requirements of the task order cause you to have to add clauses? While not a be-all-end-all exercise, it may help you determine if it's within scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the CS or KO assigned to the task order and I don't work at the organization either but I as a SBA Procurement Center Representative in the area I do have a responsibility to monitor the organization. I personally believe the task order is out of scope and that it should stay in the 8(a) program but I am more concerned with the scope issue right now and will deal with the 8(a) factor afterwards. I just want to get a feel for what the community thinks about this question.

The data clauses that are in the contract are 52.227-14 and 52.227-17, but I did not see anything else that called for establishing an IT system in the PWS or in the WBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract is for "environmental remediation," and the SOW includes a task for management of associated data. (Is that right?)

The prospective task order is to set up an entire data management infrastructure.

Is the data to be managed by the infrastructure produced in the performance of environmental remediation?

A ) If not, then the task order is out of scope.

B ) If so, then it might, just maybe, be within scope. Compare the prospective size of the task with the average size of orders issued for environmental remediation work. If the IT job is as great or greater than the average, that casts doubt on the scope issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern makes good points. If the IDIQ allows for Task Orders that are not directly environmental remediation, but support services, then this may be another support service within scope.

Can the remediation be accomplished without this Task Order?
Would work on this Task Order provide infrastructure used for purposes other than environmental remediation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another key: Would the task order work be performed primarily by the prime or mainly by a sub? If a sub is going to do most of the work, that's a sign that the work might be out of scope. I don't know of many environmental remediation firms with a sideline of database infrastructure design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first question would be "Is this work necessary for the performance of the scope of the contract?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to ask if the work is necessary for the performance of the scope. Contractors don't perform the scope of a contract. They perform work that is within or outside the scope, but they don't perform the scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to ask if the work is necessary for the performance of the scope. Contractors don't perform the scope of a contract. They perform work that is within or outside the scope, but they don't perform the scope.

True enough. I should have stated it as asking "Is this work necessary to perform the contract for the purpose of environmental remediation?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the CS or KO assigned to the task order and I don't work at the organization either but I as a SBA Procurement Center Representative in the area I do have a responsibility to monitor the organization.

FAR 16.505 references a Task & Delivery Order Ombudsman. I would suggest identifying this individual at the buying office (for example it may be the Competition Advocate) and run the task order scope question by him/her and see what they say - if there is agreement they may be able to talk to contracting officer about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is whether or not data management could be stretched to encompass a task order that basically sets up the entire data management infrastructure.

Incidentally, this work was originally completed via a separate 8(a) contract. The focus of the IT service will be to support the remediation, but the actual task order will do no remediation, it will only be to establish an IT system.

I'm confused. Which work was originally completed via a separate 8(a) contract - establishing an IT system or the environmental remediation? Is the IT system already established under the 8(a) contract and they want this contractor to modify it? Or is this a continuation of environment remediation already begun by an earlier 8(a) contract? Please clarify

If not set up and necessary to be set up, is it necessary that this contractor be responsible for the establishment or maintenance of it in order to execute environmental remediation - regardless of whether the actual work to develop the system is done by the prime or a sub? In other words, would the prime have to provide input and oversight into the establishment of the IT system? If so, it would seem to be logical to do it under this contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel,

From what I have gathered, the IT work is currently being completed using a system created by/maintained by an 8(a) contractor. I do not know if that contract was originally awarded by the buying activity who now has the requirement. The buying activity is seeking to move that work to a remediation ID/IQ contract task/delivery order so that the work would be within their funding authority. I have found that if the work would be awarded outside of the remediation contract it would likely be awarded by another division within the overall organization since the buying activity does not have the authority to establish a stand alone IT system.

That leaves two issues; should the work be moved to the remediation contract and can the requirement be removed from the 8(a) program?

As far as the relationship between the remediation work and the IT system, I have not gotten that far into the weeds yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×