I've been assigned the administration of task orders that were issued against a multiple award contract that ended several years ago (in 2009). A few of the last task orders awarded while the base contract was active included four one-year options. These "zombie" task orders are still active, but paragraph (d) of the IDIQ clause (FAR 52.216-22) allowed only for the contractor to be required to perform for one year past the base contract's period of performance.

It seems to me that any task order options exercised after this one-year period should be questionable. Unfortunately, these task orders still have an option or two remaining to be exercised.

I'd like to avoid being in this situation again. Can paragraph (d) of this clause be tailored (for an upcoming contract) with language that would provide for awarding task orders throughout the last effective day of the base contract with a base and options that would extend 5 years beyond the effective date of the base contract, and still have the base contract govern the rights and obligations of the parties as if the contract were still effective?

I have read and re-read Vern Edward's Those Pesky IDIQ Contracts Again, but I'm not sure I understood his responses to questions 3 & 4 in the document:

3. Can you put an option in a task order that can be exercised after the expiration of the effective period?

The answer to the third question is problematical. It would be best to extend the contract effective period prior to exercising such an option in a task order, just to avoid any issues about the viability of the option. Since extension of the effective period would expand the scope of the contract, the intention to do so in connection with such task order options should be stated in the solicitation for the contract and provided for in the contract.

4. If so, can the option require performance after the last date of required performance?

The answer to the fourth question is also problematical. There might be an issue, unless the task order option expressly requires the contractor to work after the last date of required performance, thereby effectively extending that date for the task order in question. The contract should make provision for extension of the last date of contract performance in connection with such task order options.

If it is permissible to do this with a tailored clause, it would be helpful if someone could provide some sample language to tailor paragraph (d) of the clause for this purpose.

And one other thing; does the 5-year limit discussed in 17.204(e) have any effect on the length of task orders issued against an ending base contract that has a 5-year period of performance?

There is an easy way to avoid the problem to you are now confronting. In the future do not issue any task order that includes an option that would require performance beyond the date in 52.216-22(d). Alternatively, when awarding the IDIQ contract set a date in 52.216-22(d) far enough in the future to encompass the period of performance of any task order option that might be exercised. Either way, you can avoid the need to get approval for a FAR deviation. See the definition of deviation at FAR 1.401( c).

Is that too easy? Why do I have the feeling that you'll come back with a reason why you cannot do either of those things and ask again for advice? As for the five year limit, are you asking about an option to extend the ordering period, an option to extend the performance period, or both?

Question: Isn't there anyone in your office who can answer your questions?

Thanks for responding Vern. Your first approach is an obvious one. I would not do this and it is for not wanting to do this that I'm getting some push-back. As for setting the date in 52.216-22(d) far enough in the future - this is precisely what I wanted to know. How far out can I set the date? If I can set it far enough to allow for a 5-year period of performance on a task order that is awarded at any time during the base contract's effective period, then this is the approach I would adopt.

My concern with the 5 year limit regards the base contract. If the base contract has a 5 year effective period and my tailoring of 52.216-22(d) provides for the contract to govern a task order that was awarded near the base's end date for an additional 5 years - have I violated the 5 year rule? Or is the 5 year limit applicable to the ordering period only?

Question: Isn't there anyone in your office who can answer your questions?

It's difficult to answer that question. There are some folks who I can ask, but often times I receive mixed and conflicting responses. I've been keeping a list of about 10 questions that have stumped me, the answers to which would would clarify some concepts for me. I was hoping to get responses from highly knowledgeable individuals, such as yourself, that would not leave me in doubt. I figured since I visit this site often, that I could create some discussion while having my questions answered.

Hi Rios,

I got your private message and of course I remember you. I didn't recognize the Wifcon moniker.

There is no rule about how far out you can set the date in 52.216-22(d). So do what makes sense to you.

You ask a good question about the five year limit on options. I think that if you interpret it as a five year limit on options to extend the contract ordering period, then I do not think that options in task orders would violate the limit.

Rios - Many of the GWACs use 60 months in 52.216-22(d). I know Alliant and AlliantSB do. I think CIO-SP3 does as well. CIO-SP2i originally had 12 months then saw new awards drop off in year 7 and 8 of the contract POP and changed it to 60 months. ITES-2S originally had 6 months but I haven't checked recently to see if they've changed that.

I can remember a few instances at my last organization where we had to jump through hoops because the underlying GSA Schedule had expired a few months before it was time to exercise an option and no one realized it..

Thank you for your responses. This helps a lot!