Jump to content

Unpriced Options - Legal?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Desparado said:

That was one suggestion as well.  But, like you, I find that clunky and unnecessary.  Sadly, my lack of A&E knowledge puts me at a disadvantage in these discussions with the HQ peeps.

If this is USACE, I’d be glad to discuss offline with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Desparado said:

They don't argue that there can be options... but insist they much be priced.

They are really just going with the basic concept that any award has to have a negotiated cost/price (even if a ceiling) to be legal and binding.

Desparado,

I don't think unpriced options are binding, either. They lack the requirement for certainty of terms. We probably shouldn't call them "options" at all, because they don't meet the FAR definition of "option". I understand them as an agreement to negotiate the price of work that may or may not be defined in the contract.

For an A-E contract, you select your contractor and then negotiate the price. I don't know of anything that requires you to price the entire contract all at once. I think you can price some contract work now (for work you want done now) and some later (for work you want done later). Call the work you haven't priced "unpriced work"--don't call it an "unpriced option".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been an intriguing puzzle.   

Putting all the pieces together provides the following.

FAR part 6 provides that A-E contracting (Brooks Act) is a competitive procedure.  (FAR 6.102(d)(1))

FAR part 6 provides that FAR part 6 does not apply to orders placed under IDIQ contracts when the contract was entered into pursuant to FAR 6.1 as well as orders placed against task and delivery orders entered into pursuant to FAR 16.5.  (FAR 6.001(e) & (f))

FAR part 16.505 provides that orders are to describe all services to be performed so the full price or cost of the work can be established when the order is issued.

FAR part 17 does not apply to A-E contracts but does not preclude the use of options in A-E contracts. (FAR 17.2)  Note here that the considerations of exercise of options at FAR 17.207 provide that requirements of FAR part 6 should be considered and satisfied when it comes to options but as already noted FAR part 6 provides that it does not apply to task orders.

FAR subpart 36.6 provides that its processes can be used with regard to FAR subpart 16.505.  (36.600)

It is generally held and supported in part by determinations that a task order is a “contract”.  http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/2044-dar-council-interprets-contract-to-include-task-and-delivery-orders/

Conclusion – The award of multiple award IDIQ contracts implied in this thread were accomplished using a competitive procedure and as such task orders, which are determined to be contacts in and of themselves,  under the IDIQ contacts are not subject to competition requirements of FAR part 6.   FAR part 16.5 provides that task orders are to be priced but does not provided the imperative that they cannot include an option, priced or un-priced, and options are not precluded in an A-E contract (task order).

The GAO document that is indicated as the lynch pin for the discussion in this thread deals specifically with standalone “umbrella” contracts and provides no reference to task orders and more specifically task orders under multiple award IDIQ contracts for A-E services.

Considering the specifics of all the facts an option can be used in a task order for A-E services and the option is not subject to FAR part 6 competition requirements.   An un-priced option is not precluded and is not subject to any limitations, procedures, or processes of FAR part 6 and therefore not FAR 17.   The unpriced option is subject only to limitations, procedures or processes stated in the task order and/or the parent IDIQ contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Some “ in Desperado’s organization appear to be hanging their hats on 17.2 and perhaps 17.207, which aren’t applicable to A-E contracts.

A-E contracts use a specifically directed QBS process to select the most qualified.firm, then the parties negotiate fair and reasonable pricing to accomplish the A-E services task.

I hope that my understanding is correct that that they cant definitize a price for later phases of the contract that will depend upon the initial design. 

If so, how would the organization  contract for A-E services to design the project if there were no ID/IQ ?  

Also, please note 36.101(b):

“(b) When a requirement in this part is inconsistent with a requirement in another part of this regulation, this part 36 shall take precedence if the acquisition of construction or architect-engineer services is involved.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so just issue the follow up task orders to the same A-E firm as an exception to fair opportunity. Mutually determine and define the scope then negotiate the design fee. 

If the follow on design work is within the overall scope of the instant task order, you can add the work as in-scope changes. Mutually define the additional design work and negotiate the price.

if You are in the initial task order solicitation process , include your intended course of action for the phases in the task order statement of work. 

Edit: you probably ought  to state that it is the government’s intent to... but the government reserves the right to separately contract for such design work, if it is determined  to be in the best interest of the government to do so. Not being familiar with the nature  of the follow on  limits my recommendation somewhat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's assumptions above are accurate.  It is a multiple award IDIQ contract for A&E services. We do a QBS competition where the most highly qualified firm is selected for task order award IAW 36.6, but as a task order also has some 16.505 applicability..

The "some" people in my organization feel that no contract, task order or anything can be awarded without being priced, period...

I appreciate all your input.  It has been informative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 11:44 AM, Retreadfed said:

I presume that your agency has lawyers.  What do they say about this?

Lawyers appear to be on board with the "some" as well.  Small agency, limited A&E experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can only price what you can definitize.

What do they say about my suggestions, both of which would be consistent with 16.5?

Your organization would have to be totally ignorant about architect -engineer design processes, design development, design integrity if they won’t let you use the same architects and engineers of record for follow on design work that would be essentially non-severable or based off of the initial design effort. 

The other A-E pool members should understand that if you let everyone know that during the initial task order selection process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Desparado said:

It is a multiple award IDIQ contract for A&E services

Why do you need options for this contract type?  Why not just issue a contract with an ordering period that covers the entire period of performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

Why not issue a task order for what you can price at the outset, then subsequent task orders for other work when you price the other work?

Yes, that is one of my suggestions, with the proviso that it or they will be follow on task orders, exempt from fair opportunity (based upon the description provided). If so, then state that intent in the initial task order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this thread concerns an internal debate over hypothetical scenarios, not an actual A/E task order. 

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not knowing the details of the actual multi-phase project, I can only speculate. You said that it is not possible to define the follow on phase design effort well enough to price now.

I’m guessing that the follow on design phase involves using the initial design somehow. Is the follow on work segregable or integral to the initial design and construction? 

If yes, then how would “some” proceed to obtain design services for those latter phases? 

If no, then you should not be tied to the initial A-E firm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 5/28/2019 at 8:50 PM, Desparado said:

Sadly, this is an actual situation. Multiple award IDIQ A&E services contracts.

Desparado, in noticing this thread this morning,  I'm curious how this was resolved. 

1.  Were you referring to options for follow on periods under the base MATOC ID/IQ contracts, or options for additional services under a specific task order(s)?

2. Note that the government doesn't "award" an A-E  task order until after 1) selection of the A-E and 2) price negotiations for what can be priced. 

3.  You wouldn't award an option for additional services under an ongoing task order until you determine or refine the specific scope and price for the necessary follow on work.

4. If you don't want to mess with "options" in task orders for logical follow-on efforts, you can use the exclusions to fair opportunity in 16.5 to select the same A-E and negotiate a task for the follow-on work. 

5. Bear in mind that one wouldn't logically select another A-E firm to perform non-severable type design services using the original A-E's design. Same goes for "extensions to design" work that are integral to the original design work and that require integration to maintain design integrity (You wouldn't hire Boeing to modify an Airbus plane under construction - same goes for most A-E designs during construction of the designed project).

6.  Bottom line, remember that A-E contracting is not a source selection procedure as prescribed in parts 13, 14, or 15 .  Subpart 17.2—Options does NOT apply to A-E  contracts.  A-E selection and contracting uses a statutory, "quality based selection" process (no price competition), as described in Part 36.6. Using options for additional services in an A-E ID/IQ task order or options for additional ID/IQ ordering periods is for the purpose of defining the extent of the scope of the original QBS competition, not necessarily for upfront pricing purposes.

Edited by joel hoffman
Added para. 6 reminder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2019 at 2:26 PM, Retreadfed said:

.Why do you need options for this contract type [A-E services]?  Why not just issue a contract with an ordering period that covers the entire period of performance?

Retread, I'd say that you don't want to tie yourself to every A-E pool member for the full contract order period if one or more are not perfuming well. Options are unilateral choices to make 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2019 at 8:12 AM, joel hoffman said:

Desparado, in noticing this thread this morning,  I'm curious how this was resolved. 

1.  Were you referring to options for follow on periods under the base MATOC ID/IQ contracts, or options for additional services under a specific task order(s)?

2. Note that the government doesn't "award" an A-E  task order until after 1) selection of the A-E and 2) price negotiations for what can be priced. 

3.  You wouldn't award an option for additional services under an ongoing task order until you determine or refine the specific scope and price for the necessary follow on work.

4. If you don't want to mess with "options" in task orders for logical follow-on efforts, you can use the exclusions to fair opportunity in 16.5 to select the same A-E and negotiate a task for the follow-on work. 

5. Bear in mind that one wouldn't logically select another A-E firm to perform non-severable type design services using the original A-E's design. Same goes for "extensions to design" work that are integral to the original design work and that require integration to maintain design integrity (You wouldn't hire Boeing to modify an Airbus plane under construction - same goes for most A-E designs during construction of the designed project).

6.  Bottom line, remember that A-E contracting is not a source selection procedure as prescribed in parts 13, 14, or 15 .  Subpart 17.2—Options does NOT apply to A-E  contracts.  A-E selection and contracting uses a statutory, "quality based selection" process (no price competition), as described in Part 36.6. Using options for additional services in an A-E ID/IQ task order or options for additional ID/IQ ordering periods is for the purpose of defining the extent of the scope of the original QBS competition, not necessarily for upfront pricing purposes.

Joel,

Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to you... life and all..

Sadly, I lost and we are having to develop IGEs for work that we can't even define yet (both later-to-be-funded tasks and options) as the powers that be are convinced that if we don't we will have "unpriced options" that essentially are sole-source task orders.  So now we develop an IGE with our assumptions, get a cost proposal from the most highly qualified contractor and negotiate.

I totally concur on all your other comments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, if you use FAR Subpart 17.2 for A&E—like many do—you may be required to follow FAR Subpart 17.2 procedures.

“While FAR Subpart 17.2 by its terms does not apply to construction contracts, we conclude that the agency is bound to follow the procedures of FAR § 17.208 once, as here, it incorporates either clause (FAR §§ 52.217-4 or 52.217-5) providing for evaluation of options. See Foley Co., B-245536, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 47 at 4 n.2.“

It’s best you write your own option clauses if you don’t want to be bound to the Subpart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamaal,  it’s not a price competition nor is it a construction contract. It is a quality based A/E selection. There is no competitive price evaluation for selection of an A/E firm for a base ID/ IQ, for a task task or for a single award project design using the Brooks Act procedures.

I think that has been made clear here several times. 

Options in an A/E contract are merely a method for the government to decide whether or not to use the A/E firm for additional services for the project or for additional ordering periods on a base ID/IQ pool. 

One wouldn’t order additional services until prices are negotiated or otherwise known and agreed to. Additional services would be within the scope of the original contract QBS and within the scope of a task order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...