I think the answer is no.  But I can't find any authority that directly addresses this question.  Does anyone know?

How does your question differ from the situation where a FAR 13 BPA has prices for a variety of commodities.  Ordering activities issue “calls” which may be oral or written. 

Sort of related to formerfed's response a BPA pursuant to FAR Part 13 is a simplified acquisition method.  An IDIQ is implied as a formal contracting method begging the question why not just use the BPA as a BPA no IDIQ is necessary.

Hypothetical: An agency establishes a BPA with 10 BPA Holders for software development services.  Agency issues a Call Order to BPA Holder #1, where that Call Order is characterized as "an IDIQ."  Agency issues a Task Order #1 off of the Call Order for BPA Holder #1 to develop software #1.  Then Agency issues Task Order #2 off of the Call Order for BPA Holder #1 to develop software #2.  BPA Holders #2 to #10 file a protest asserting that the Agency has violated competition rules.  Thoughts on how this would play out?

 

1 hour ago, govt2310 said:

Thoughts on how this would play out?

I think with the limited information provided there is risk of the protest(s) being sustained.  Reference FAR 13.303-2(c) and 13.303-5(c).  Especially if there was no competition to establish the IDIQ.

More detailed information and research of protests might change my mind.  It just depends.

This protest is not on point but it might give a view of GAO's position on competition and doing future research on when the protest is cited in subsequent decisions might get you to a more on point decision.   Envirosolve LLC, B-294974.4, June 8, 2005

 

10 hours ago, C Culham said:

Thoughts on how this would play out?

Sustained.  You will lose the protest, probably.

You have a multiple-award 'vehicle.'   For any multiple-award vehicle, in general, you cannot issue orders to a single contractor (BPA Holder) without some sort of competition amongst the contractors on the same vehicle.  Its anti-competitive and against the rules.

This is 'in general' - there is much nuance and many exceptions to this general rule; however, you probably are NOT issuing orders (calls) under some exception.  You'd know it if you were.  It would be quite an unlikely coincidence to be unknowingly but correctly using one of these exceptions.

Caveat: I am not an expert - I know just enough to be dangerous. Many other posters here are actual experts, take them more seriously than me.

 

 

 

 

Thank you to everyone who responded to my original post.  This is helpful.

Yes, it would appear that you would be establishing what appears to be a single source, non-competitive IDIQ contractual relationship off of a non-contractual Multiple BPA arrangement. 

On 12/20/2024 at 9:08 AM, General.Zhukov said:

Sustained.  You will lose the protest, probably.

You have a multiple-award 'vehicle.'   For any multiple-award vehicle, in general, you cannot issue orders to a single contractor (BPA Holder) without some sort of competition amongst the contractors on the same vehicle.  Its anti-competitive and against the rules.

This is 'in general' - there is much nuance and many exceptions to this general rule; however, you probably are NOT issuing orders (calls) under some exception.  You'd know it if you were.  It would be quite an unlikely coincidence to be unknowingly but correctly using one of these exceptions.

Caveat: I am not an expert - I know just enough to be dangerous. Many other posters here are actual experts, take them more seriously than me.

 

 

 

 

I think the situation in the original post is odd, but hey. All of that aside, what if the multiple-award BPAs were competitively awarded? Would the orders need to be competed?

Now, what if order #1 was competed at the BPA or order level? What’s to protest? When would the protest need to be filed?

*Logan LLC., B-294974.6, December 1, 2006 (There is no requirement for further competition among BPA holders under competitively awarded BPAs.)

16 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I think the situation in the original post is odd, but hey. All of that aside, what if the multiple-award BPAs were competitively awarded? Would the orders need to be competed?

Carrying that further, what if the solicitation from which the BPAs were awarded described the process in which calls/orders would be placed?  It might include a non-price item like past performance?  There’s no “Fair Opportunity” requirement with BPAs as well.

 

 

17 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I think the situation in the original post is odd, but hey. All of that aside, what if the multiple-award BPAs were competitively awarded? Would the orders need to be competed?

Now, what if order #1 was competed at the BPA or order level? What’s to protest? When would the protest need to be filed?

*Logan LLC., B-294974.6, December 1, 2006 (There is no requirement for further competition among BPA holders under competitively awarded BPAs.)

Is not there an implication within Logan that while further competition is not required and rotation of orders is okay the agency shall make a determination of of capabilities and pricing to make the selection of one firm over another fair?   For me in reading the original post and the supplemental information provided in further posts by the original poster makes me wonder, even if the BPA's were competed originally, what the selection process was for the BPA holder that got the IDIQ?  For that matter what was the selection process to be for any calls issued against the mulitple BPAs?

As an oddity I also wonder if the BPA's had wording that calls could in fact be IDIQ's?    Usually a BPA Call (under FAR part 13) is a one time simplified acquistion.   A call against a charge account if you will.  Creating an IDIQ just seems in conflict with this ideal.  I am not saying it can not be done just agreeing that it is an oddity and as such one would hope in creating the oddity in the beginning the BPA's acknowledged the oddity could be created via a call.

Answers to my questions could change the view of GAO but on face of what has been provided I still think "sustain" is likely.