Can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside and for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the resultant Task Orders do not need to be set-aside for small business and can just be "Full and Open".

Conversely, can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the Task Orders must also be set-aside for small business.

Any GAO or COFC or SBA rulings/cases that reference anything like this would be greatly appreciated as well.

Brief BG: IDIQ is for Services. Single NAICS. Set-Aside for Small Business and only awarded to Small Business. It is not a GSA Schedule or an Interagency Contract. Task Order Procedures are to follow Ordering Procedures Outlined in FAR 16.505. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2) Contracting Officers will provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for all awards which exceed the micro-purchase threshold. In accordance with FAR 16.5 the CO has broad discretion in determining which contractor should receive a task order.

18 hours ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside and for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the resultant Task Orders do not need to be set-aside for small business and can just be "Full and Open".

Conversely, can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the Task Orders must also be set-aside for small business.

Any GAO or COFC or SBA rulings/cases that reference anything like this would be greatly appreciated as well.

Brief BG: IDIQ is for Services. Single NAICS. Set-Aside for Small Business and only awarded to Small Business. It is not a GSA Schedule or an Interagency Contract. Task Order Procedures are to follow Ordering Procedures Outlined in FAR 16.505. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2) Contracting Officers will provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for all awards which exceed the micro-purchase threshold. In accordance with FAR 16.5 the CO has broad discretion in determining which contractor should receive a task order.

Let's see if I can unpack the issues with some general comments.

Generally speaking a Task Order can only be issued to those holding a IDIQ. Under this general rule consider FAR Clause 52.216-18 that would usually be found in the parent IDIQ contract. Also consider FAR 16.504(a)(4)(iv) where "awardees" of the IDIQ are be given a fair opportunity for consideration of orders.

This said I guess one could imagine an agency doing something very unique and place language in a IDIQ that would allow award of a Task Order to other than a holder of the IDIQ. It would in my view be very complicated to do so and I have never seen parent IDIQ contract language allowing it. Yet I have learned over time to never say never.

To the point of SB setaside or not I have this gut feeling in reading your original post that all the facts are not present and that some how the matter reaches to something similiar to this GAO protest so I am offering as reference for you to read. https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-419167.pdf#:~:text=DIGEST.%20Protest%20alleging%20that%20a%20procuring%20agency,task%20order%20issued%20under%20a%20multiple%2Daward%20contract.

Bottomline for me is one specific fact unknown and that is what are the specific terms and conditions of the parent IDIQ contract. I say this because of this quote from your post "determining which contractor should receive a task order" because in my read of FAR 16.5 "contractor" in my view is implied as being a contractor that holds the indefinite delivery contract not just any contractor.

Hope this helps.

Thank you so much for responding! I am scanning the GAO Case this morning and will do a deep dive as well. I understand why it looks on the surface like this might have been what I was talking about because it sounds so similar, but it's not this case; but so far this is an interesting read. I want to make sure you have all the information as well so please see below to clarify the information for you and my question. I appreciate your insight and hopefully the below clarifies :)

The IDIQ was set-aside for small business only (SDVOSB) and awarded to small business only, and has just one NAICS code attached. It is a 5 year + 5 year. The Limitations on Subcontracting are NOT reviewed at the Task Order level, but rather on the main IDIQ level at the end of the 5-year POP, and instructions state to not include the LOS in the Task Orders.

The exact verbiage regarding Task Order Procedures: "Will follow Ordering Procedures Outlined in FAR 16.505. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2) Contracting Officers will provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for all awards which exceed the micro-purchase threshold, unless one of the exceptions in FAR 16.505 applies. Should one of these exceptions exist, the CO may execute the task order as a sole-source task order, seeking proper justifications in accordance with the FAR and agency procedures."

The IDIQ Contract Clauses Include the General 52.212-4 (December 2022) which includes the order of precedent, and as you referenced above yes it includes 52.216-18 (Aug 2020) that in the event of a conflict the IDIQ contract shall control.

So the questions are:

If all IDIQ holders/awardees are Small Business according the the Set-Aside of the Main IDIQ do ALL Task Orders that are solicited using this IDIQ have to also be set-aside for Small Business in that same NAICS code (and where in the FAR does it say that or where does it "not" say that).

Conversely, can a Task Order be competed amongst the IDIQ holders that is not Not Set-Aside for Small Business, even though the IDIQ WAS set-aside, and then awarded as "No Set-Aside Used" or "Unrestricted" on the 1449 (and where in the FAR does it say that).

On 12/27/2025 at 4:07 PM, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside and for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the resultant Task Orders do not need to be set-aside for small business and can just be "Full and Open".

Conversely, can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the Task Orders must also be set-aside for small business.

I'll start by attempting to clarify a couple of confusing aspects within your post.

First, soliciting "full-and-open competition" is incompatible with order placement procedures. An agency seeking full-and-open competition is inviting the open market -- the entire universe of qualified businesses -- to participate. Existing IDIQ holders may also participate, but competition is not limited to them, and if they propose under the solicitation, the terms of their existing IDIQ contracts wouldn't apply. On the other hand, an agency seeking fair opportunity competition is limiting responses to IDIQ holders only, with the intent of placing an order in accordance with IDIQ terms.

Second, awarding a task order via total small business set aside under a multiple-award IDIQ that was awarded via total small business set aside would appear to be a completely redundant and illogical action. It's not clear why an agency would do this or why an IDIQ holder would care. Pursuant to FAR 19.102(b)(1) and (2), agencies must select only one NAICS code per IDIQ contract until October 1, 2028, when they will have the option to select multiple NAICS codes. Per FAR 19.102(b)(3), any task order placed against an IDIQ with a single NAICS code must use the same NAICS code as that assigned to the IDIQ.

(b) Determining the appropriate NAICS codes for the solicitation.

(1) Unless required to do otherwise by paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, contracting officers shall assign one NAICS code and corresponding size standard to all solicitations, contracts, and task and delivery orders. The contracting officer shall determine the appropriate NAICS code by classifying the product or service being acquired in the one industry that best describes the principal purpose of the supply or service being acquired. Primary consideration is given to the industry descriptions in the U.S. NAICS Manual, the product or service descriptions in the solicitation, the relative value and importance of the components of the requirement making up the end item being procured, and the function of the goods or services being purchased. A procurement is usually classified according to the component that accounts for the greatest percentage of contract value.

(2)(i) For solicitations issued on or before October 1, 2028, that will result in multiple-award contracts, the contracting officer shall assign a NAICS code in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(ii) For solicitations issued after October 1, 2028, that will result in multiple-award contracts, the contracting officer shall–

(A) Assign a single NAICS code (and corresponding size standard) that best describes the principal purpose of both the acquisition and each subsequent order; or

(B) Divide the acquisition into distinct portions or categories (e.g., line item numbers, Special Item Numbers, sectors, functional areas, or equivalent) and assign each portion or category a single NAICS code and size standard that best describes the principal purpose of the supplies or services to be acquired under that distinct portion or category.

(3)(i) When placing orders under multiple-award contracts with a single NAICS code, the contracting officer shall assign the order the same NAICS code and corresponding size standard designated in the contract.

(ii) When placing orders under multiple-award contracts with more than one NAICS code, the contracting officer shall assign the order the NAICS code and corresponding size standard designated in the contract for the distinct portion or category against which the order is placed. If an order covers multiple portions or categories, select the NAICS code and corresponding size standard designated in the contract for the distinct portion or category that best represents the principal purpose of the order.

Bottom line, until October 1, 2028, the agency in the scenario you describe would be querying the exact same group of IDIQ-holders for a task order whether or not the order is set aside. It's a distinction without a difference.

I agree with Carl that more information is needed to provide a direct response. I'm assuming you meant fair opportunity instead of full and open, and perhaps you meant socioeconomic set-aside at the task-order level instead of small business set-aside. If this is the case, you may find FAR 19.504 to be informative:

(b) Orders under set-aside contracts—

(1) Orders under total set-aside contracts. Under a total small business set-aside, contracting officers may at their discretion set aside orders for any of the small business socioeconomic concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3) provided that the requirements at paragraph (a) of this section, 19.502-2(b), and the specific program eligibility requirements are met.

In other words, an agency may conduct socioeconomic set-asides under a multiple-award IDIQ awarded via small business set-aside.

19 minutes ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Thank you so much for responding! I am scanning the GAO Case this morning and will do a deep dive as well. I understand why it looks on the surface like this might have been what I was talking about because it sounds so similar, but it's not this case; but so far this is an interesting read. I want to make sure you have all the information as well so please see below to clarify the information for you and my question. I appreciate your insight and hopefully the below clarifies :)

The IDIQ was set-aside for small business only (SDVOSB) and awarded to small business only, and has just one NAICS code attached. It is a 5 year + 5 year. The Limitations on Subcontracting are NOT reviewed at the Task Order level, but rather on the main IDIQ level at the end of the 5-year POP, and instructions state to not include the LOS in the Task Orders.

The exact verbiage regarding Task Order Procedures: "Will follow Ordering Procedures Outlined in FAR 16.505. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2) Contracting Officers will provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for all awards which exceed the micro-purchase threshold, unless one of the exceptions in FAR 16.505 applies. Should one of these exceptions exist, the CO may execute the task order as a sole-source task order, seeking proper justifications in accordance with the FAR and agency procedures."

The IDIQ Contract Clauses Include the General 52.212-4 (December 2022) which includes the order of precedent, and as you referenced above yes it includes 52.216-18 (Aug 2020) that in the event of a conflict the IDIQ contract shall control.

So the questions are:

If all IDIQ holders/awardees are Small Business according the the Set-Aside of the Main IDIQ do ALL Task Orders that are solicited using this IDIQ have to also be set-aside for Small Business in that same NAICS code (and where in the FAR does it say that or where does it "not" say that).

Conversely, can a Task Order be competed amongst the IDIQ holders that is not Not Set-Aside for Small Business, even though the IDIQ WAS set-aside, and then awarded as "No Set-Aside Used" or "Unrestricted" on the 1449 (and where in the FAR does it say that).

So you're talking about a multiple-award IDIQ set aside for SDVOSBs. But why are you asking about set-asides at the task order level? Where in your scenario has this come up?

In this scenario, there would be no subsequent set-asides for the reasons I described above. A total small business set-aside or SDVOSB set-aside would be entirely redundant. Literally, the competition wouldn't be "set aside" for anyone.

Are you asking about a different type of socioeconomic set-aside, like HUBZone or 8(a)?

Yes I agree it is confusing and probably sounds odd which is why I am asking, and apologize if the words I am using are incorrect; I am trying to be as clear as possible.

Yes the IDIQ was set-aside for SDVOSB and all of the awardees are SDVOSB. When a subsequent Task Order is competed amongst the IDIQ holders that are all SDVOSB, are you saying that there is no requirement in the FAR that the Task Order SF 1449 state "set-aside for SDVOSB" in the NAICS corresponding to the IDIQ?

5 minutes ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Yes I agree it is confusing and probably sounds odd which is why I am asking, and apologize if the words I am using are incorrect; I am trying to be as clear as possible.

Yes the IDIQ was set-aside for SDVOSB and all of the awardees are SDVOSB. When a subsequent Task Order is competed amongst the IDIQ holders that are all SDVOSB, are you saying that there is no requirement in the FAR that the Task Order SF 1449 state "set-aside for SDVOSB" in the NAICS corresponding to the IDIQ?

There's the procedures that are used and there's the data that's reported (i.e., FPDS-NG).

Generally, the FPDS-NG report for a task order will propagate the same set-aside information as contained in the report for the IDIQ. The 1449 will indicate a set-aside as well because it's generated from the master contract.

But procedurally, in the situation you've described, there is no secondary set-aside for placing task orders. When the agency has a work requirement, it will do some level of market research to determine the acquisition strategy. Part of that research should be whether the work can and should be solicited under the multiple-award IDIQ in which your firm participates. If the agency decides to use that vehicle, the CO makes no set-aside determination because the solicitation is by default set-aside. The only available participants are certified SDVOSBs.

Make sense?

59 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

If the agency decides to use that vehicle, the CO makes no set-aside determination because the solicitation is by default set-aside.

I might nitpick this and hopefully responds to the original posters questions as well.

I would suggest the CO in doing "some level of research" would go something like this. CO in doing the research determines that for the need whether two or more SDVOSB's can provide fair market price for the delivery (timely) of all the item(s). If this is determined a Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources (see FAR 6.206) is appropriate and the CO decides to solicit only SDVOSB's. The CO does not do a formal justification or determination and finding but does document the file to whatever extent the CO feels is necessary to support a decision to setaside for SDVOSB. With the decision made the CO then decides if there is an existing tool, such as the agency's IDIQ, to do the setaside or if they need to solicit the entire market of SDVOSB's for the item(s).

Essentially the decision to setaside or not leads to the tool, process, method or whatever you want to call it to make the acquisition.

So directly to the new questions -

3 hours ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

So the questions are:

If all IDIQ holders/awardees are Small Business according the the Set-Aside of the Main IDIQ do ALL Task Orders that are solicited using this IDIQ have to also be set-aside for Small Business in that same NAICS code (and where in the FAR does it say that or where does it "not" say that).

Yes all the Task Orders are by default setaside because the CO is using a tool that was setaside, etc. that has only firms on it that qualify for the setaside.

3 hours ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Conversely, can a Task Order be competed amongst the IDIQ holders that is not Not Set-Aside for Small Business, even though the IDIQ WAS set-aside, and then awarded as "No Set-Aside Used" or "Unrestricted" on the 1449 (and where in the FAR does it say that).

1 hour ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

When a subsequent Task Order is competed amongst the IDIQ holders that are all SDVOSB, are you saying that there is no requirement in the FAR that the Task Order SF 1449 state "set-aside for SDVOSB" in the NAICS corresponding to the IDIQ?

Once again clarity is needed and the specific language of the IDIQ would be helpful. Additional thoughts.

Are you saying that the only entities being solicited for the need are those on the SDVOSB IDIQ? Or has the agency gone to those on the IDIQ as a matter or courtesy since the need is within the NAICS? I ask because remember a determination to setaside or not is based on competition (two or more at fair market price) along with quantity and timely delivery. It could be that the CO's research couldn't really determine whether all on the IDIQ could meet price, quantity, delivery so going out to those on the IDIQ and those that are not is a form of market research. Get the quotes and if an entity on the the IDIQ says they can meet the need they could get the award of the need outside the IDIQ. The twist comes at award. Let me see if I can further clarify..

Properly if the need was not setaside then tying the award to the IDIQ as a Task Order is not proper in my view. Remember the reference to FAR Clause 52.216-18? Remember that the clasue says all task orders are subject to the terms and conditions of the parent IDIQ contract. The parent contract was setaside, correct? So if the CO did not setaside the need but found that an entity on the IDIQ could do it and awarded to them they should award the procurment outside of the IDIQ and so the SF-1449 should show it was not setaside.

Bottomline the CO does not have to use an IDIQ when a decision is made to setaside but can as a matter of efficiency. Likewise the CO can solicit from those on an IDIQ if the competition is determined to be full and open but award would not be made pursuant to the IDIQ but to a full and open competition.

Confusing I know but once again I hope I helped.

Yes thank you to the both of you, that does make sense so far!! So in layman's terms, basically by default all of the Task Orders are already automatically set-aside for the SDVOSBs in that NAICS by way of the terms of the IDIQ; therefore the 1449 should/would always say the Task Order is "100% Set-Aside for SDVOSB" in that NAICS. So by that logic, all of the Task Orders automatically are "set-aside" (even though that's not the correct way of saying it). And if a Task Order 1449 said it was "Unrestricted" that would be an error.

10 minutes ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Yes thank you to the both of you, that does make sense so far!! So in layman's terms, basically by default all of the Task Orders are already automatically set-aside for the SDVOSBs in that NAICS by way of the terms of the IDIQ; therefore the 1449 should/would always say the Task Order is "100% Set-Aside for SDVOSB" in that NAICS. So by that logic, all of the Task Orders automatically are "set-aside" (even though that's not the correct way of saying it). And if a Task Order 1449 said it was "Unrestricted" that would be an error.

Yes

45 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Essentially the decision to setaside or not leads to the tool, process, method or whatever you want to call it to make the acquisition.

I disagree that this would be the common flow of events. The first logical question most agencies ask during market research is where the capable firms are (i.e., which, if any, contract vehicles cover the scope of work?). That leads to the applicable acquisition procedures and which firms might be available within the competitive field. The procedures and availability of firms tells us whether a set-aside is necessary or even within the realm of possibility.

1 hour ago, FrankJon said:

I disagree that this would be the common flow of events. The first logical question most agencies ask during market research is where the capable firms are (i.e., which, if any, contract vehicles cover the scope of work?). That leads to the applicable acquisition procedures and which firms might be available within the competitive field. The procedures and availability of firms tells us whether a set-aside is necessary or even within the realm of possibility.

Your full statement was this (emphasis added).

4 hours ago, FrankJon said:

But procedurally, in the situation you've described, there is no secondary set-aside for placing task orders. When the agency has a work requirement, it will do some level of market research to determine the acquisition strategy. Part of that research should be whether the work can and should be solicited under the multiple-award IDIQ in which your firm participates. If the agency decides to use that vehicle, the CO makes no set-aside determination because the solicitation is by default set-aside. The only available participants are certified SDVOSBs.

So the vehicle to be used dictates whether to setaside or not? Seems inconsistent with FAR part 10 and 19. To add use of the agency IDIQ is not generally mandatory. Why is the decision limited to the agency IDIQ, why isn't say AbilityOne, GSA FSS and so on all the way to full and open in the mix. While I would agree the formality of market research is a gut feeling of the CO of where to go I believe formalized or not the steps I described is the suitable approach. My read of FAR part 10, as now definitized by the RFO, suggests strongly that if the acquisition is above the SAT the IDIQ is not automatic, setaside or not.

No need to debate further just my view of one more misconception inbred into the world of agency IDIQ's.

On 12/27/2025 at 1:07 PM, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside and for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the resultant Task Orders do not need to be set-aside for small business and can just be "Full and Open".

Conversely, can anyone tell me if there is a specific regulation in the FAR that states IF a Multiple Award IDIQ is set-aside for Small Business and ONLY awarded to Small Business that the Task Orders must also be set-aside for small business.

One of the first things I was taught to do as a young contract specialist was to order supplies and services from GSA schedule contracts. It took me a while. I was bewildered. I still am.

I find today's GSA world to be a morass of stultifying complexity. Am I alone in feeling this way?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

I find today's GSA world to be a morass of stultifying complexity. Am I alone in feeling this way?

You are not alone. The complexity results from a host of varying solutions to changing legal, regulatory, technological, and marketplace conditions. It’s a matter of considering what’s currently happening, “how can we make the Schedules attractive for continual and even greater use?“ So the result is a maze resulting from band-aid revisions.

There are lots of complaints from buying agencies - too complicated to follow the rules, prices aren’t good, don’t want to pay the hidden 0.75% GSA fees, and want to utilize their own teams and conditions.

Still I find them very beneficial in the right situations. For example, instead of establishing a pool multiple award contracts for supplies or services which might take several months maybe running into a year, award BPAs under the Schedules. One simply does market research, identifies three of four capable sources, and you’re done.

@formerfed

Just now, formerfed said:

Still I find them very beneficial in the right situations.

I didn't say that GSA FSS aren't beneficial in the right situations. But given the widespread use of GSA FSS contracts (and GWACs) someone should launch a GSA and GWAC overhaul.

Really, the number of pages in numerous places devoted to explaining GSA FSS and GWACs ordering procedures is ridiculous. And all in the name of innovation and streamlining.

All efforts to reform contracting ultimately end up producing more rules, explanations of rules, and case law.

BTW, GSA is already claiming that its latest procedural Rube Goldberg innovations will save a billion $$$ over the next few years, an assertion that no one will even try to verify, especially not GSA.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

stultifying

I learned a new word today. One which happens to summarize the state of Federal acquisition quite nicely.

Thanks, Vern!

Just now, FrankJon said:

I learned a new word today. One which happens to summarize the state of Federal acquisition quite nicely.

Thanks, Vern!

👍

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

One of the first things I was taught to do as a young contract specialist was to order supplies and services from GSA schedule contracts. It took me a while. I was bewildered. I still am.

I find today's GSA world to be a morass of stultifying complexity. Am I alone in feeling this way?

On 12/27/2025 at 1:07 PM, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

It is not a GSA Schedule or an Interagency Contract.

So the new question has strayed us off topic but I will bite anyways.

In the beginning I was not bewildered. Challenged maybe to explain to the requisitioners how to navigate GSA for their market research efforts.

Today yes complicated by the width and breath of growth in GSA Purchasing Programs and as formerfed notes GSA's efforts to stay viable as an acquisition service for the Federal government. While my actual experience has waned I do get the feeling that in the context of educating the acquisition workforce regarding GSA Purchasing Programs is nothing like it use to be.

PS - I still have it. And it is a GSA Certificate of Training 10/3-7/1977 "Small Purchases/Federal Supply Schedules". No research on my part but I wonder in FAI's FAC-C what is comparable today?