Mpqholygrail Posted July 14, 2016 Report Share Posted July 14, 2016 Situation: A current single award IDIQ base plus 2 has been setup in such a way that it no longer fits the agency’s needs and the requirements are out of scope of the original IDIQ. To kill the contract while in an option year would be detrimental to end user because it would cause delays lasting several months to the services and products provided. Solution: Establish a concurrent sole source no option one-year single award IDIQ to the current vendor justifying that current systems must conform to the existing systems. The current contractor will not utilize any systems placed by another vendor due to liability concerns. While both IDIQ’s are in place, prepare a new fully competed IDIQ reflecting the new scope. Question: Is this sound conceptually in accordance with the FAR? Opinions are greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Mpqholygrail said: the requirements are out of scope of the original IDIQ. What does this mean? Are you issuing orders that are not within the scope of the original contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 The OP didn't provide enough information but if they can justify establishing a new sole source ID/IQ with the same Contractor, they should be able to justify modifying the scope of the current contract by supplemental agreement. Why would they have to award a separate contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 16 hours ago, Mpqholygrail said: Solution: Establish a concurrent sole source no option one-year single award IDIQ to the current vendor justifying that current systems must conform to the existing systems... Is this sound conceptually in accordance with the FAR? Can you justify a sole source award? If not, then your plan is not sound. It sounds like you have a contract that does not meet your needs and you need a contract that does. If that's the case, then the existing contract is not relevant to this discussion. "Killing" the contract won't cause delays, because it does not meet your needs, and so you cannot order what you need under its terms. Read FAR 6.302-1 and tell us, specifically, which justification you plan to use in support of a sole source acquisition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpqholygrail Posted July 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 19 hours ago, Retreadfed said: What does this mean? Are you issuing orders that are not within the scope of the original contract? The orders are exceeding the CLIN maximums for the IDIQ. We have orders that are exceeding the maximum amount allowed on certain CLIN's for the entire year not at the order level. 9 hours ago, joel hoffman said: The OP didn't provide enough information but if they can justify establishing a new sole source ID/IQ with the same Contractor, they should be able to justify modifying the scope of the current contract by supplemental agreement. Why would they have to award a separate contract? The amount of orders on a specific CLIN is exceeding the amount allocated to it during a 1 year period on the IDIQ. 6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: Can you justify a sole source award? If not, then your plan is not sound. It sounds like you have a contract that does not meet your needs and you need a contract that does. If that's the case, then the existing contract is not relevant to this discussion. "Killing" the contract won't cause delays, because it does not meet your needs, and so you cannot order what you need under its terms. Read FAR 6.302-1 and tell us, specifically, which justification you plan to use in support of a sole source acquisition. I will be justifying the action per FAR 6.302-1(A)(2)(ii)(B). When the current contract was put in place, major delays of up to 6 months took place when the incumbent vendor and vendor owned equipment was exchanged to the new contractor. The supplies in this contract impact in the development of major weapons systems being overhauled and or modified. The current contract meets a portion of the governments demands but not all of it and it is clear to me a new contract to handle the total volume necessary, will need to be drawn up after proper competition. Although delays will happen anyway if a new vendor is selected after competition, the timing would be less invasive to current operations. This allows for planning to take place for a versatile phase-in plan in case a new vendor replaces the incumbent. I recently took this over so I am attempting to stay within the regulations and limit mission impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted July 15, 2016 Report Share Posted July 15, 2016 Holy, I would do a J&A based on 6.302-1 to increase the quantities on the existing contract enough to compete an new contract. Proably a years worth by the time you compete and then deal with that possible 6 month transition you mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mpqholygrail Posted July 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2016 On 7/15/2016 at 3:56 PM, Boof said: Holy, I would do a J&A based on 6.302-1 to increase the quantities on the existing contract enough to compete an new contract. Proably a years worth by the time you compete and then deal with that possible 6 month transition you mentioned. Boof, Thank you for the reply. We have decided to go this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts