May 22, 201411 yr comment_22310 You might want to read GAO decisions B-401471 (Major Contracting Services, Inc., Sep. 14, 2009) and B-401472.2 (Department of the Army--Reconsideration, Dec. 7, 2009) for some background. As I understand, this is the basis for all the -8 evaluation brouhaha.
May 23, 201411 yr comment_22351 Whatever was evaluated should be reflected in your PNM/SSDD (whatever documents the award decision). If there is no discussion of how options were considered, how would the existence of a contract ceiling tell you the option years were considered (evaluated) when making the award decisions?
May 23, 201411 yr comment_22353 Locke, can you tell us how a price is offered for an option in a multiple award IDIQ contract? In other words, what is priced?
May 23, 201411 yr comment_22354 It is stupid to include the -8 and/or -9 option clauses in an IDIQ contract.
May 27, 201411 yr comment_22358 An IDIQ contract is an option contract. After it has purchased the minimum, the government has the option to issue additional orders or not within the ordering period and up to the maximum quantity. As for the ordering period, there are very few limitations on its length. See e.g., FAR 16.505( c) and 22.1002-1. Otherwise, you can have an ordering period of 10 years or longer. How long an ordering period do you need? How long do you think is wise? The -8 and -9 options are not necessary, and if their use is ineffective, then their use is stupid -- a needless complication.
May 27, 201411 yr comment_22360 Thanks everyone for a response. Because the options were not priced as part of the IDIQ contract, it makes sense that the options were not evaluated as part of the initial solicitation and a J&A is required. I was hoping there was a way around this but it doesn’t appear so. The intent of including both the -8 and -9 option clauses in our IDIQ contract was to give the government the ability to extend the ordering period. While ineffective, I don’t think this was a stupid decision. Beyond the in-place ordering period (usually beyond one year) or extending the ordering period year-to-year?
