Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

My apologies if this has been asked before, but I can't find it here nor on GSA Q&A boards...where is the restriction on soliciting for the same requirement on two different IDIQs at the same time, then awarding against only one? 

This has become a debate internally in the office, and more of a what-if scenario at this point. I know this sounds odd, but here's the scenario -- Time is limited and a Part 16 order is preferred over a potential direct award if there isn't time for a full-blown Part 15 source selection.  Market research shows IDIQ #1 will provide slightly more competition over utilization of IDIQ #2.  However, the best outcome in terms of maximum competition would be to solicit via both since it encompasses the largest vendor pool.  I'm certain this is not possible, but I can't find the documentation to support why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe put a blurb in both fair opportunity notices that, for this procurement, the agency is issuing notices simultaneously under both the _____ and _____ sets of multiple-award IDIQ contracts, but that only one task or delivery order award will be made under only one.

At least you will be transparent.  If anyone protests (before offers are due), you will be able to see if the legal argument has any validity.

There is a comparable process in hiring -- an agency may announce the identical vacancy using both public and merit promotion venues simultaneously, and then review results from both, maybe even interview candidates from both, and then make one selection.  This happens every day, and no one complains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No disagreement with the idea of a "blurb".  One additional thought to consider.  The IDIQs' statements on FO are the guiding principles of ordering under the IDIQs.  No doubt there is no restrictions to your idea but if me I would scrutinize the ordering and use instructions of each IDIQ to insure there is no road block to running concurrent competitions.  Again absent some contract statements  doing the FOPR concurrent would probably be ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is helpful for a poster to define an abbreviation or acronym consistent with WIFCON Forum rule 16. This thread is posted under the “For Beginners Only” Forum Category.

“FOPR” apparently means “Fair Opportunity Proposal Request”.

For example, here it  is a GSA term for various types of multiple award contracts that provide for or require a fair opportunity when requesting proposals for an order. 

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/fair-opportunity :

“Fair opportunity is a requirement that U.S. government agencies purchasing goods or services under a multi-award contract give every company that holds that contract an equal opportunity to respond to a request for proposal (RFP).”

(I mentioned this because there was a lively debate awhile ago on the WIFCON Forum about what to name the action for multiple award contract task order competitions. )

Correct me if I am mistaken. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A more common approach to involving the most highly qualified vendors is pick just one contract vehicle.  Promote teaming arrangements including subcontracting by your fair opportunity notice and even a fedbizopps/beta.sam notice.  You could also allow a few extra days in your schedule for those arrangements to form

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, formerfed said:

A more common approach to involving the most highly qualified vendors is pick just one contract vehicle.  Promote teaming arrangements including subcontracting by your fair opportunity notice and even a fedbizopps/beta.sam notice.  You could also allow a few extra days in your schedule for those arrangements to form

I sense that CS21’s organization is satisfied with the qualifications of the pools and may be seeking robust price competition but I may be wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Is FAR16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B) applicable here? "The contracting officer shall—(1) Provide a fair notice of the intent to make a purchase..." 

The internal debate is whether or not you actually have an "intent to make a purchase" via each IDIQ in a scenario where simultaneous use of more than one IDIQ is contemplated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

CSpecialist,

In your original posting, you said "I'm certain this is not possible" yet you asked the question anyway.  You got responses and opinions already, but it seems those answers didn't fully support your position.  If you don't want to do it, then don't do it.  If you want to do it, then do it.  What else can anyone say?  Perhaps FAR 1.102(d) and 1.102-4(a) and (e) will be helpful to you.

Here's a thought -- do it, with a blurb as described -- If anyone protests (before offers are due), you will be able to see if the legal argument has any validity.

In your original posting, you said time was limited.  You could have already released your Fair Opportunity Notices by now, and even had responses (or protests) by now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, CSpecialist21 said:

Is FAR16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B) applicable here? "The contracting officer shall—(1) Provide a fair notice of the intent to make a purchase..." 

The internal debate is whether or not you actually have an "intent to make a purchase" via each IDIQ in a scenario where simultaneous use of more than one IDIQ is contemplated. 

Posted noting  ji's most recent response.

My view is no the FAR is not applicable.  As I stated in a previous post the rules of FO are that of the contract once awarded therefore in my view if the parent contracts do not prevent doing FO under two different  multiple award contracts why couldn't one do it (noting the references that ji has provided).  Or in other words I do not believe FAR 16.505(b)(1)iii)(B) addresses the scenario you have proposed and if a prohibition has likewise not been found in law (statute/case law) executive order or other regulation then there you have it.

An alternative view suggests that you are complying with the FAR reference you have provided as you have clear purpose, it would seem, to make an award to somebody under the contracts.  Therefore compliance if you will with "intent" matter at hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

CSpecialist,

In your original posting, you said "I'm certain this is not possible" yet you asked the question anyway.  You got responses and opinions already, but it seems those answers didn't fully support your position.  If you don't want to do it, then don't do it.  If you want to do it, then do it.  What else can anyone say?  Perhaps FAR 1.102(d) and 1.102-4(a) and (e) will be helpful to you.

Here's a thought -- do it, with a blurb as described -- If anyone protests (before offers are due), you will be able to see if the legal argument has any validity.

In your original posting, you said time was limited.  You could have already released your Fair Opportunity Notices by now, and even had responses (or protests) by now. 

I appreciate the feedback, but as I mentioned in the original question, this is purely a what-if situation (there is no FOPR to put out there for possible protest).  Perhaps "I'm certain" was not the best choice of words :)  My opinion is based on interpretation of 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B) that you cannot provide "fair notice of the intent to make a purchase" to two different IDIQs simultaneously when you are certain to have only 1 award. But, I fully admit that there is no full-stop restriction (CO shall not) in Part 16.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Posted noting  ji's most recent response.

My view is no the FAR is not applicable.  As I stated in a previous post the rules of FO are that of the contract once awarded therefore in my view if the parent contracts do not prevent doing FO under two different  multiple award contracts why couldn't one do it (noting the references that ji has provided).  Or in other words I do not believe FAR 16.505(b)(1)iii)(B) addresses the scenario you have proposed and if a prohibition has likewise not been found in law (statute/case law) executive order or other regulation then there you have it.

An alternative view suggests that you are complying with the FAR reference you have provided as you have clear purpose, it would seem, to make an award to somebody under the contracts.  Therefore compliance if you will with "intent" matter at hand.

C, sorry but i didn't see your reply before posting mine above.  I appreciate the perspective on what "intent to make a purchase" actually means with respect to this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, CSpecialist21 said:

C, sorry but i didn't see your reply before posting mine above.  I appreciate the perspective on what "intent to make a purchase" actually means with respect to this situation.

Not a problem....

As afterthoughts -

It would seem that the effort as you propose could be viewed in the positive light that you are taking steps to enhance competition not stymie it.

"Protest" keeps popping up.  You have not painted your  "what-if" with regard to value.  Your effort could be one that is a "ombudsman" matter and not one of a GAO protest.  At least in the simple view when it comes to value noting that my own limited research does not produce any implication that GAO would want to hear a protest of a task order fair opportunity effort that crosses over to two different multiple award IDIQs.  Again enhanced competition!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...