Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

govt2310

Can you issue an IDIQ off of an IDIQ?

Recommended Posts

Can you issue an IDIQ off of an IDIQ? There has got to be an existing thread on this question somewhere on WIFCON. Can someone post the link to it, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you issue an IDIQ off of an IDIQ? There has got to be an existing thread on this question somewhere on WIFCON. Can someone post the link to it, please?

Against what contract do you wish to place the order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are asking is if you can issue an order under an IDIQ contract that allows you to issue orders under the order.

There is no rule about this in FAR. GSA permits the use of such a procedure in association with its Federal Supply Schedule contracts, but calls the instruments blanket purchase agreements instead of orders. See FAR 8.405-3. I'm sure that something like that has been done under IDIQ contracts, although I cannot point to a specific example. Such a thing can be complicated and might be unwise, but absent some rule or contract term that prohibits it, it is permissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are asking is if you can issue an order under an IDIQ contract that allows you to issue orders under the order.

There is no rule about this in FAR. GSA permits the use of such a procedure in association with its Federal Supply Schedule contracts, but calls the instruments blanket purchase agreements instead of orders. See FAR 8.405-3. I'm sure that something like that has been done under IDIQ contracts, although I cannot point to a specific example. Such a thing can be complicated and might be unwise, but absent some rule or contract term that prohibits it, it is permissible.

Hmm. Well, I queried other colleagues, and got these two answers:

One colleague, who believes the FAR prohibits issuing an IDIQ-off-of-an-IDIQ: "I have checked, and while I can find no explicit prohibition in the FAR to issuing an indefinite-quantity order under an IDIQ contract, an indefinite-quantity task order that permitted further ordering under it would violate the requirement at FAR 16.505(a)(2).

16.505 -- Ordering.

(a) General.

* * * * *

(2) Individual orders shall clearly describe all services to be performed or supplies to be delivered so the full cost or price for the performance of the work can be established when the order is placed. Orders shall be within the scope, issued within the period of performance, and be within the maximum value of the contract.

An order that provided for further ordering would not meet the test of this paragraph.

And the other colleague: This is a cut and paste from a GSA contract person's answer to this same question back in December 2007 to my colleague, which seems to indicate that only GSA can issue an order off a GSA IDIQ upon which they can issue more orders, and call it a BPA, but no other agency seems to have this authority:

"In addition, the FPDS-NG guidebook also indicates that any instrument placed against a FSS cannot be an IDIQ or IDV contract. In fact, it has been my experience that if the NG report covering an order placed against a GSA FSS is improperly coded as an IDV, it will show up on the NG error report. The reason is that only GSA can issue and IDV as the source document for the award of orders or BPAs against the GSA FSS IDV/IDIQ contract."

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thoughts?

First, please re-read Monsieur Vern's reply. Where does FAR 8.405-3, Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), limit use of BPAs to GSA? See also http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104445.

Also, never allow the rules governing FPDS to influence how you read and interpret the FAR. To do so is like letting the smallest hair on the dog's tail wag the dog.

Finally, there is a number of indefinite delivery multiple award contracts and GWACs. You must read the ordering provisions of each to determine if you can place an IDIQ order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

govt2310:

You work with people of little professional imagination and ingenuity. I have two thoughts about your colleagues' responses:

1. An order which permits the placement or orders against it would violate FAR 16.505(a)(2) only if it did not "clearly describe all services to be performed." That need not be the case. Many services are generic, the only difference between one performance and another being matters of volume. For example, the service could be floor mopping, a reasonably generic task. The only difference between one performance and the next might be square feet to be mopped.

Creative specification can "clearly describe all services" as follows: Investigate pollution in wetlands, including any or all of the following tasks, as further selected... . Each order could be for a different wetland.

2. Since when should anyone care about "a GSA contract person's answer" to any question other than one pertaining to the FSS program? Why should anyone care about "a GSA contract person's" answer about even that kind of answer?

Anyone can argue that some rule works against you. It takes professional knowledge and skill to make the rules work for you. Choose your colleagues with that thought in mind. Neither or your colleagues has a sound leg to stand on. I'd stay away from them, if I were you. What they've got might be catching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that you could describe the services to be performed in a more general manner, but what about the subsequent part of 16.505(a)(2):

16.505 -- Ordering.

(a) General.

* * * * *

(2) Individual orders shall clearly describe all services to be performed or supplies to be delivered so the full cost or price for the performance of the work can be established when the order is placed.

How can you establish the full cost or price of performance of an IDIQ task order at the time that the order is placed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic order would not be an "order" in the official sense of the word, since it wouldn't really order anything. It would really be an "ordering arrangement," like GSA's BPA under FSS contracts. We've been referring to such an arrangement as an order for the sake of convenience. Absolutely nothing in FAR says that you cannot establish a further ordering arrangement within an existing ordering arrangement. If the name order bothers you, then use something else, like BPA or "subordinate ordering arrangement" (SOA), auxiliary ordering arrangement" (AOA), or "supplementary ordering protocol" (SOP), or something else with a vowel so you can create a fun acronym.

I would just say "order" and explain what I'd done the file. Then I wouldn't give it another thought.

Use your heads, people. Do what Clint Eastwood said: Improvise, adapt, and overcome. See FAR 1.102-4(e).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that you could describe the services to be performed in a more general manner, but what about the subsequent part of 16.505(a)(2):

16.505 -- Ordering.

(a) General.

* * * * *

(2) Individual orders shall clearly describe all services to be performed or supplies to be delivered so the full cost or price for the performance of the work can be established when the order is placed.

How can you establish the full cost or price of performance of an IDIQ task order at the time that the order is placed?

GSA Federal Supply Schedules are indefinite quantity contracts. Placement of a BPA or BPAs against a Schedule contract pursuant to FAR 8.405-3 is not placement of an order. Orders are placed subsequent to the establishment of the BPAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic order would not be an "order" in the official sense of the word, since it wouldn't really order anything. It would really be an "ordering arrangement," like GSA's BPA under FSS contracts. We've been referring to such an arrangement as an order for the sake of convenience. Absolutely nothing in FAR says that you cannot establish a further ordering arrangement within an existing ordering arrangement. If the name order bothers you, then use something else, like BPA or "subordinate ordering arrangement" (SOA), auxiliary ordering arrangement" (AOA), or "supplementary ordering protocol" (SOP), or something else with a vowel so you can create a fun acronym.

I would just say "order" and explain what I'd done the file. Then I wouldn't give it another thought.

Use your heads, people. Do what Clint Eastwood said: Improvise, adapt, and overcome. See FAR 1.102-4(e).

COMMITS is an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) task order contract designed to offer information technology (IT) services and IT-based solutions to Federal customers. I found this in the COMMITS ordering guide:

Quote

Unauthorized Activities

The following are not authorized under the COMMITS NG contract

 Renting (it is ok for a contractor to enter into rental agreements to fulfill task order requirements,

but the government will not be a party to them)

 Leasing (it is ok for a contractor to enter into leases to fulfill task order requirements, but the

government will not be a party to them)

 While Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) are not allowed, the same benefits may be realized

through flexible contractual line items.

 Task orders that are not primarily IT Service Orders.

 Task orders that are primarily supplies or software/hardware maintenance

 Task orders that are used to circumvent conditions on limitations on the use of funds .

Unquote

I wonder what are "flexible contractual line items"?

http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/revisedNEX...de5-14-2009.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically with regard to GSA FSS.........

The debate my colleagues and I have is that while a "BPA" may used be to place an "ID/IQ" action for use under GSA, a BPA is an agreement, not a contract and not an order, and is non-binding.

So for those of us with little professional imagination and ingenuity....aside from a BPA (which is an agreement) is there a way (under the GSA FSS) to place a binding ID/IQ "order/contract/instrument" (which has a maximum ceiling, a minimum guarantee, a general statement of work, and rate information) which allows for the issuance of subsequent defined task orders that will require defined statements of work and task order cost proposals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifically with regard to GSA FSS.........

The debate my colleagues and I have is that while a "BPA" may used be to place an "ID/IQ" action for use under GSA, a BPA is an agreement, not a contract and not an order, and is non-binding.

So for those of us with little professional imagination and ingenuity....aside from a BPA (which is an agreement) is there a way (under the GSA FSS) to place a binding ID/IQ "order/contract/instrument" (which has a maximum ceiling, a minimum guarantee, a general statement of work, and rate information) which allows for the issuance of subsequent defined task orders that will require defined statements of work and task order cost proposals?

No. See the GSA Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work (SOW): http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100005.

"A firm-fixed price order shall be requested, unless the ordering activity makes a determination that it is not possible at the time of placing the order to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work, or to anticipate cost with any reasonable degree of confidence. When such a determination is made, a labor-hour or time-and-materials quotation may be requested. The firm-fixed price of the order should also include any travel costs or other direct charges related to performance of the services ordered, unless the order provides for reimbursement of travel costs at the rates provided in the Federal Travel or Joint Travel Regulations. A ceiling price must be established for labor-hour and time-and-materials orders."

While the link also contains a discussion of issuing BPAs, there is no discussion of issuing IDIQs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The debate my colleagues and I have is that while a "BPA" may used be to place an "ID/IQ" action for use under GSA, a BPA is an agreement, not a contract and not an order, and is non-binding.

That's not entirely true. A FAR Part 13 BPA is not a contract. A BPA under a FSS schedule contract is a term of a contract. Though they are both called "BPA", but they are different in their legal effect.

See http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php...entry1829.

Share this post


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

×