Incentivize Me Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Comment/suggestion with regards to a protest to Court of Federal Claims (COFC). Exercise of option on IDIQ contract. See Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc., v. U. S. and Luke & Associates, Inc. and TerraHealth, Inc., Nos. 10-106C, 10-127C; May 28, 2010. (June 4, 2010) A: COFC case found for plaintiff (contractor) which alleged Govt.'s exercise of an unpriced IDIQ option violated Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) as Contracting Officer would not be able to make determination that: (1) the price of an unexercised option is the more advantageous offer and fair and reasonable per [FAR 17.207(d)]; and (2) that the option satisfies FAR Part 6 with regards to amount specified in or reasonably determinable from the basic contract [FAR 17.207(f)]. B: FAR 16.504 [indefinite Quantity Contracts] subparagraph (a) [Description] states "Quantity limits may be stated as number of units or as dollar values." Based on A & B above, one should always ensure option ordering CLINs are stated in terms of at least price (if not quantity AND price). Otherwise, exercise of the option would be in violation of CICA. (By the way, this is another reason advocating the use of using longer base year ordering CLINs in lieu of option CLINs for additional ordering periods.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 The easy way to avoid the problem that the Air Force had is to not use options on IDIQ service contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerfed Posted June 9, 2010 Report Share Posted June 9, 2010 The easy way to avoid the problem that the Air Force had is to not use options on IDIQ service contracts. Or like Commerce did with COMMITS and not include CLINS. The contracts themselves contained no pricing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts