29 minutes ago, C Culham said:

It just seems there is a lot of duplication.

But it's not, if the CO customer knows what he or she is doing. A MAS is just a place for a contractor to state prices available to all customers. A BPA is a place for a price negotiated down to a certain customer for a certain repeatable task. It's a device for removing risk from the MAS price. An opportunity - in the right hands.

The main use case is when you have a requirement that can be met by some non-MAS IDIQ, but isn't a good fit for an order. An indefinite delivery vehicle (FPDS's term, not mine) would be better. Under the old FAR, you have three options. First, use an MAS to establish a BPA, even if the other IDIQ is otherwise superior. Second is to wield the innovation hammer and beat your indefinite requirement into a definitive order - usually with lots of dubious options, bloated scope, and forgoing future competition (see below). Third is to do an IDIQ. Now, you have a fourth and far superior option - the IDIQ-BPA.

Consider the Best-in-Class sources. OASIS, EIS and NASA SEWP (to name but a few) are all big multiple award IDIQs that effectively issue second-tier IDVs which have been beaten into something which I suppose meets the legal definition of an 'order.' So yes, this can be done - and has been done for years. But just allowing a second-tier IDV and doing away with the subterfuge and complexity (aka 'innovation') would be much better.

Generally, the self-administrated IDIQ is the last resort, anything else is preferable. There are some agencies that are awarding their own IDIQs which could have been an MAS BPA, but not too many of them. This isn't common, or a big problem. At least according to a cursory look at FPDS data. Also according to common sense - IDIQ's more effort than a BPA, for basically the same result. People aren't doing this for fun, or to spite the FAS.

I am fascinated by the amount of discussion about this topic! My initial reaction was that the topic is mundane.

It tells me something about our acquisition processes, but I'm not sure what.

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I am fascinated by the amount of discussion about this topic! My initial reaction was that the topic is mundane.

It tells me something about our acquisition processes, but I'm not sure what.

I think it’s because the subject affects a large portion of the contracting community. It’s not a trivial issue and has potentially large impacts. Just GSA Multiple Award Schedule contract spending alone amounted to $51 billion in spending in FY 24. Of this 52% was by use of BPAs. Now the FAR overhaul is allowing the concept to carry over to all IDIQ contracts. To put that into perspective, GWACS and other IDIQs accounted for $75 billion. From an 1102 standpoint where most are burdened with a heavy workload and constant pressure by program offices to make prompt awards, this is a big issue.

But the really important point is it just makes sense if properly implemented and not abused.

18 hours ago, Voyager said:

But it's not, if the CO customer knows what he or she is doing. A MAS is just a place for a contractor to state prices available to all customers. A BPA is a place for a price negotiated down to a certain customer for a certain repeatable task. It's a device for removing risk from the MAS price. An opportunity - in the right hands.

Ok but here are some questions.

Is your view with regard to services, supplies or both?

I understand negotiate down and "all" customers (the entire executive branch, state and local governments and even sometime individual contractors) under GSA MAS so what you are saying agency awarded BPA's (AABPA) via their own multiple award IDIQ contracts give the ability to negotiate more favorable pricing? If so could not that more favorable pricing be negotiated with regard to standalone BPA's in the first place? In other words why go through two steps to get better pricing just do it in one step?

If negotiate down is allowed by a AABPA does it not fly in the face of the rewrite FAR part 12 of a standing price quotation where AABPA's are intended to allow calls by any individual (FAR 12.201-1)?

My thoughts - GSA MAS BPA's are a way to set up a conduit for CO's to avoid the hassle of synopsis with a tool where they can set up the tool they can use to to acquire stuff. I view the AABPA in the same vein which in my view is where the bastardization of AABPA's has occurred. They are no longer a "charge account" for individuals to use but a tool created to make a CO's life easier. What they have become is a conduit for a contractor to get in good with a particular agency and have a multitude of needs sent their way (they hope). I am not saying this is bad. What I am saying is as already noted a AABPA is an unnecessary step. Just go out a compete the BPA(s) up front as I believe one could do so and meet the intent of FAR 12.201-1.

@Vern Edwards @General.Zhukov @formerfed

Interesting yes but this thread has become a little confused as it has departed from the question of agency awarded BPAs via existing agency awarded IDIQs and of sorts argues their need as compared to GSA MAS awarded BPAs. My view is it is comparing two different animals with different arguments as to their beneficial creation and use. In the end I would agree GSA MAS is underutilized by agencies and as such agencies going their own way to set up agency awarded IDIQs where they can then set up BPA's under the IDIQs is a duplication of work. Most probably a duplication of what GSA has already done for them, and a duplication where agency could just compete BPAs with out going through the whole IDIQ stuff.

16 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I am fascinated by the amount of discussion about this topic! My initial reaction was that the topic is mundane.

It tells me something about our acquisition processes, but I'm not sure what.

9 hours ago, formerfed said:

But the really important point is it just makes sense if properly implemented and not abused.

At the N&CR Roundtable in 2020 (I believe the last one, possibly 2019) I recall the panel lamenting the fact that IDIQs could easily be used to lock out all or most competition for a period of 10 years.

Here, taken to its logical extreme, you could have a contractor that competes for and wins a single-agency, multiple-award IDIQ contract at considerable expense, then immediately upon award competes for and loses a competition for a multiple-award BPA, and then over a 10-year period is locked out of competing for any further work. The only reward for participating in those competitions would be the minimum guarantee. While one might reasonably think the second competition would be highly streamlined, this won't always be the case; agencies and individuals will add complexity. Further, while the RFO requires the CO to consider on-ramps if the BPA ordering period exceeds 5 years, the rule stops there. The CO need not implement on-ramps, and if s/he does implement them, may do so in any fashion s/he likes.

While I think most would consider the above scenario to be an "abuse" of this technique, it also strikes me as an inevitable scenario that the RFO writers must have considered but ultimately decided to allow. I've read the comments under this post and still don't see how this technique comports with the spirit or letter of 41 U.S.C. § 4106(c). My belief remains that either the drafters will proactively rewrite this technique to add restrictions, or the GAO or courts will find it to be at odds with statute.

2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Here, taken to its logical extreme

Yes and of sorts the reason multiple award IDIQs became the standard. People lamenting about being locked out of single award IDIQs. Now another way to lock them out.

Back in 1996 I wrote an article entitled, The New Rules for Multiple Award Task Order Contracting, in which I said:

[T]he proposed rule is significant because of the policy preference for multiple awards and task order competition. Presumably, multiple awards and competition among the awardees for task orders would pressure the awardees to continuously increase their productivity and the quality of their output. But multiple awards and task order competition could also increase the administrative cost and lead time associated with the issuance of task orders, and those effects could cancel out or even overwhelm the advantages accruing from task order competition. Although the idea of awarding multiple task order contracts for the same service and requiring that the awardees compete for individual task orders is not new (a few agencies have been doing this for many years), the vast majority of task order contracts have been single awards. Thus, the new policy can be expected to have a significant effect on procurement operations.

I had no idea.

The Iron Law of Bureaucracy: Any rule designed to reduce bureaucracy will ultimately increase bureaucracy.

On 10/8/2025 at 2:28 PM, uva383 said:

The FAR overhaul wanted to eliminate all policies and procedures not established by law. In looking over some of the updates, I noticed the new FAR Part 16 now suggests that BPAs can be established under multiple award IDIQ contracts, which is definitely not in law. In fact, it is actually contrary to law... The concept of fair opportunity is based in law, not regulation. 41 U.S.C. § 4106(c) states very clearly:

"(c) Multiple Award Contracts.-When multiple contracts are awarded under section 4103(d)(1)(B) or 4105(f) of this title, all contractors awarded the contracts shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered, pursuant to procedures set forth in the contracts, for each task or delivery order in excess of the micro-purchase threshold under section 1902 of this title that is to be issued under any of the contracts..."

ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED A FAIR OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH TASK ORDER... That is the law

I’m really struggling to understand why you would establish a BPA under an IDIQ and how would you go about establishing the agreement and comply with fair opportunity.

I'm covering the RFO for Contract Management magazine and wrote about this in the January issue. Thanks for bringing this up.

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

I’m really struggling to understand why you would establish a BPA under an IDIQ and how would you go about establishing the agreement and comply with fair opportunity.

As to "why," the answer is to avoid the cost and time required to provide a fair opportunity.

As to "how," you could do it by conducting a competition among all IDIQ contractors and say you'll give BPAs to the top three contenders. See the FAR Companion, page 49.

Would that be legal? That's what Don has written about. I don't know. Seems dubious. But who knows what's legal these days?

Sounds like they're pushing forward for this in January: https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gsa-plans-refresh-of-major-gwacs-by-end-of-january/

1 hour ago, Freyr said:

Sounds like they're pushing forward for this in January: https://www.meritalk.com/articles/gsa-plans-refresh-of-major-gwacs-by-end-of-january/

This is a different topic.

On 12/3/2025 at 12:00 PM, Don Mansfield said:

I'm covering the RFO for Contract Management magazine and wrote about this in the January issue. Thanks for bringing this up.

I'm wondering if you caught this bit in the Practitioner Album within your article, Don:

• Contracting officers for multiple award contract vehicles established prior to the effective date of this deviation, using part 16 procedures, are encouraged to modify existing contracts to allow for the establishment of BPAs (see 16.504-5(h)(2)).

Based on this, if I awarded a multiple-award IDIQ years ago without any contemplation of BPAs even being possible, I can now unilaterally change the contract to conduct a competition for BPAs and exclude the unsuccessful IDIQ-holders from further participation under the IDIQ. It really feels like the RFO drafters believe they've identified a gap in the existing body of Federal acquisition knowledge, and now they're merely pointing it out for others to exploit. I wonder if they have reason to be so confident...

The irony here is that they may have been on firmer ground to make this sort of creative interpretation before SCOTUS overturned Chevron. Looking forward to the article!

25 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

This is a different topic.

In what way? If I understand the topic here (which I may not, I frequently misunderstand things), it's about adding the ability to issue BPAs under IDIQs. The link talks to them adding the ability to have BPAs under OASIS+ by the end of January.

GWAC Updates Coming in January

Beyond the MAS refresh, Stanton said similar updates are coming to GSA’s GWACs and other multiple award contracts in the coming weeks. Those updates will incorporate the same FAR deviations and policy changes now appearing in the schedule program.

“We’re also looking at our GWACs and our other multiple award contracts, such as Oasis+,” Stanton said. “All of those, you’re going to be seeing similar refreshes by the end of January.”

“I know that Alliant 2 already moved out on being able to add [blanket purchase agreements], so you’re already seeing some of the changes of FAR,” she added.

Stanton said other contracts, including Oasis+, will also have blanket purchase agreements by the end of January, telling stakeholders to “hang on for six more weeks.”

24 minutes ago, Freyr said:

In what way? If I understand the topic here (which I may not, I frequently misunderstand things), it's about adding the ability to issue BPAs under IDIQs. The link talks to them adding the ability to have BPAs under OASIS+ by the end of January.

GWAC Updates Coming in January

Beyond the MAS refresh, Stanton said similar updates are coming to GSA’s GWACs and other multiple award contracts in the coming weeks. Those updates will incorporate the same FAR deviations and policy changes now appearing in the schedule program.

“We’re also looking at our GWACs and our other multiple award contracts, such as Oasis+,” Stanton said. “All of those, you’re going to be seeing similar refreshes by the end of January.”

“I know that Alliant 2 already moved out on being able to add [blanket purchase agreements], so you’re already seeing some of the changes of FAR,” she added.

Stanton said other contracts, including Oasis+, will also have blanket purchase agreements by the end of January, telling stakeholders to “hang on for six more weeks.”

You're correct. My mistake. I didn't read far enough.

On 12/16/2025 at 9:12 AM, FrankJon said:

I'm wondering if you caught this bit in the Practitioner Album within your article, Don:

Based on this, if I awarded a multiple-award IDIQ years ago without any contemplation of BPAs even being possible, I can now unilaterally change the contract to conduct a competition for BPAs and exclude the unsuccessful IDIQ-holders from further participation under the IDIQ. It really feels like the RFO drafters believe they've identified a gap in the existing body of Federal acquisition knowledge, and now they're merely pointing it out for others to exploit. I wonder if they have reason to be so confident...

The irony here is that they may have been on firmer ground to make this sort of creative interpretation before SCOTUS overturned Chevron. Looking forward to the article!

I didn't catch that, but I assumed they were implying that was now possible. I agree that it seems the RFO folks believe they are being innovative.

FYI, this is what I wrote:

"Lastly, the authority to establish BPAs under multiple-award contracts could be problematic. Unlike ordering under Federal Supply Schedules, when ordering under multiple-award contracts there is a statutory requirement (41 U.S.C. §3302(c)(2)) to 1) notify all contractors of the intent to make an individual purchase (defined as a task order, delivery order, or other purchase) and 2) afford all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to be considered for the individual purchase. Having said that, the RFO Practitioner Guide for part 16 states “Contracting Officers must create ordering procedures for the BPA that provide fair opportunity to all BPA holders, not all contractors under the IDIQ.” That doesn’t seem to comply with the statute—we may have to wait for a protest before we know for sure."

25 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

FYI, this is what I wrote:

"Lastly, the authority to establish BPAs under multiple-award contracts could be problematic. Unlike ordering under Federal Supply Schedules, when ordering under multiple-award contracts there is a statutory requirement (41 U.S.C. §3302(c)(2)) to 1) notify all contractors of the intent to make an individual purchase (defined as a task order, delivery order, or other purchase) and 2) afford all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to be considered for the individual purchase. Having said that, the RFO Practitioner Guide for part 16 states “Contracting Officers must create ordering procedures for the BPA that provide fair opportunity to all BPA holders, not all contractors under the IDIQ.” That doesn’t seem to comply with the statute—we may have to wait for a protest before we know for sure."

Good stuff. I agree with your position.

Questions on my mind:

1. Is there any precedent for this situation, in which the FAR reinterprets a longstanding statute so audaciously?
   

2. I imagine COFC would be the appropriate venue for challenging this regulation. But what would happen if the GAO received the protest instead? Would it be within GAO's authority to disregard the FAR because they believe it runs counter to statute?