XYZ program with an approved Sole Source J&A creates an option CLIN with a set price (cost + fee). Funds are then committed up to that amount.

Based on historical data XYZ program has an idea of what type of effort will be performed under the option (general scope) but does not know any specifics (Ex. Modify a landing gear for a new environment not yet identified). Once the URGENT requirement (the environment the landing gear will need to perform in is established) is identified the organization receives a SOW, BOEs and supporting cost data from the contractor. The parties then expeditiously negotiate the cost of the effort and apply the pre-established fee percentage (detailed in the original option CLIN) to the negotiated cost.

The negotiated price (cost + fee) is less than the original option price and the need to field the urgent requirement is met. Is this a successful solution to meet an urgent need or has XYZ program bent the rules too FAR (pun intended)?

Other concerns:

As detailed in FAR 17.202((2), would an indefinite quantity or requirements contract be more appropriate?

As required by FAR 17.207©(4), can the option be properly synopsized since the scope of the work is only vaguely defined?

Hopefully I will not have to come back and add a ton of additional information b/c I know Vern hates that. My goal is to generate a good discussion and not necessarily answer the question directly.

Thanks in advance.

Successful if you say so. Sloppy and inefficient without question.

IDIQ for one task? Why?

Vague synopses are the norm these days, especially for sole source acquisitions.

IDIQ for one task? Why?

Of course I should have clarified but I used one option just as an example. XYZ program has a voluminous amount of options under this same construct.