In light of a recent protest (WIFCON link http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/4114813.pdf, docket B-411481.3 dated 6 January 2016) regarding a task order issued off a Federal Supply Schedule, I've heard chatter from legal advisors that the clause at FAR 52.216-22 doesn't set the effective date of the IDIQ. Consequently, they argue that clause cannot be a mechanism by which a task order featuring option years can be performed for years beyond the end of the ordering period. This interpretation seems entirely contradictory to the specific language featured in FAR 52.216-22.

Quote

52.216-22 -- Indefinite Quantity.

(a) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified, and effective for the period stated, in the Schedule. The quantities of supplies and services specified in the Schedule are estimates only and are not purchased by this contract.

(b) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with the Ordering clause. The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the Schedule as the “maximum.” The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the Schedule as the “minimum.”

(c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.

(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after _______________ [insert date].

(End of Clause)

The clause in the IDIQ in question cuts paragraph (d) short, omitting the date fill-in.

Quote

(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor's and Government's rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract's effective period.

GSA's ordering guide places the following restriction on task orders which use options (emphasis supplied by the GAO)

Quote

Options may be included on orders placed against GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts, provided that the options are clearly stated in the requirement and are evaluated as part of the ordering activity’s best value determination. Such options may be exercised on GSA Schedule contract orders, provided that:
Funds are available;
The requirement covered by the option fulfills an existing government need;
Prior to exercising an option, the ordering activity ensures that it is still in the government’s best interest, i.e., that the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the government's need, price, and other factors considered; and
The options do not extend beyond the period of the Schedule contract, including option year periods.

Interestingly, GSA has revised their ordering guides within the last two weeks to put an end to the issue this portion of the protest encountered: https://interact.gsa.gov/document/important-update-new-mas-refresh-mass-modification-changes-february-2016-streamline

Quote

Order Options: MAS contracts will now include the standard FAR clause 52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity to allow ordering activities and MAS contractors to continue orders up to 60 months after the base MAS contract has expired. This aligns the FSS contracting flexibilities for task orders with other GWACs and MACs, including Alliant and OASIS.

Researching WIFCon, I've found relevant discussions.

Here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1665-task-orders-that-extend-beyond-base-contract-pop/#comment-14003

Quote

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. {...}

Vern's invaluable blog post at http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/644-those-pesky-idiq-contracts-again/ provided some excellent reading, but nothing that corresponds with what I am hearing from legal counsel.

Another discussion seems to predate the fateful action which triggered the protest in question: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1768-gsa-to-with-options-beyond-k-period/

 

 

Based on the buzzings, it seems as though legal counsel is applying the restrictions imposed by GSA onto DOD contracting officers. Legal counsel has argued that:

1. The effective period may end prior to the ordering period;

2. The date of FAR 52.216-22(d) is NOT relevant to the IDIQ's effective period;

3. The contract's effective date is the same as the IDIQ's ordering period

4. The date if FAR 52.216-22(d) is only relevant to the performance period for delivery under a Task Order and thus cannot be construed to include options under that performance;

5. Inclusion of the date in FAR 52.216-22(d) would not have changed GAO's analysis of the protest in question; and

6. Task orders are not stand alone contracts and once an IDIQ has expired (rendering the contract "no longer effective), the delivery under a Task Order is irrelevant.

 

Summarily, legal counsel is strongly criticizing the idea of setting an IDIQ's "effective date" by way of the fill-in text in FAR 52.216-22. In fact, I am lead to expect this "ruling" by the various legal offices will impact DOD contracts significantly, requiring contracting officers to come up with a variety of complex "work-arounds".  Is there something I never learned or never understood with regards how FAR 52.216-22 works?

 

EDIT: Made a clarification.

Jason:

Out of everything you typed you only asked a single, unanswerable, question. Who knows what you've learned or understood besides you?

I think you are doing yourself a disservice and would have a better chance at getting worthwhile feedback if you ask a specific question.

I think you bring up a legitimate issue. What do you mean by effective date (contract effective date, ordering period, etc)?

DFARS 252.216-7006, Ordering specifies the IDIQ ordering period. 52.216-22 details how orders issued during, but extending past the effective [ordering] period will be governed.

For purposes of para. ( d ) of FAR 52.216-22, the term "effective period" is the same as what practitioners often call the "ordering period" -- they are the same.  The fill-in for para. ( d ) is not a limitation on either the effective period or the ordering period (which are the same).  Rather, the fill-in only applies to orders that are issued within the effective period (or ordering period) but not completed within that period.

Other than that, I'm with Jamaal -- what is your real question?

2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Jason:

Out of everything you typed you only asked a single, unanswerable, question. Who knows what you've learned or understood besides you?

I think you are doing yourself a disservice and would have a better chance at getting worthwhile feedback if you ask a specific question.

I think you bring up a legitimate issue. What do you mean by effective date (contract effective date, ordering period, etc)?

DFARS 252.216-7006, Ordering specifies the IDIQ ordering period. 52.216-22 details how orders issued during, but extending past the effective [ordering] period will be governed.

I admit my question was more tongue-in-cheek seeing as how I believe FAR 52.216-22 is abundantly clear that it works the opposite of how our legal side of the house says it works.

Specifically, my question is (and should have been stated as such): Do you (the collective you) agree with each of the arguments made by legal?

As i read the decision, it seems to me that the outcome is simple--

• A contracting officer may issue a task order within the ordering period (the "effective period" of FAR 52.216-22( d )) of the parent FSS schedule contract even if the period of performance of that order goes beyond the end date of the parent schedule contract's ordering period.
• However, a contracting officer may not exercise an option in a task order after the end date of the parent schedule contract's ordering period.

The GAO decision was in a FSS environment, with GSA's own and longstanding FSS rules.  The GSA violated its own rules.  I don't think you should read anything more in to the decision than this.

For example, I am not sure it is necessary to say this the GAO's approach applies to all IDIQ contracts -- it only applies to FSS schedule contracts, which are a subset of IDIQ contracts.  To me, the decision makes perfect sense in light of GSA's own and longstanding rule about options in orders under FSS schedule contracts.

Would I want to stretch the GAO's decision to cover all IDIQ contracts?  Not really -- but even so, I think I would be okay with extending the decision to cover all IDIQ contracts.  If a contracting officer issues a five-year task order a week before the parent IDIQ contract's effective period (or ordering period) ends, and that order is otherwise within the terms of the parent IDIQ contract, then the order is valid for its entire five years -- however, it is a different story if the contracting officer issues a one-year task order with four one-year options a week before the parent IDIQ contract's effective period ends.

Now, let me try to address the assertions made by your attorneys--

1. The effective period may end prior to the ordering period

• No, the parent IDIQ contract's effective period and ordering period are the same.  However, the period of performance of a task order may go beyond the parent contract's effective period, amenable to para. ( d ) of FAR 52.216-22.

2. The date of FAR 52.216-22(d) is NOT relevant to the IDIQ's effective period

• Right -- the fill-in date in FAR 52.216-22 is not relevant to the parent IDIQ contract's effective period.

3. The contract's effective date is the same as the IDIQ's ordering period

• Right.

4. The date if FAR 52.216-22(d) is only relevant to the performance period for delivery under a Task Order and thus cannot be construed to include options under that performance

• Right.

5. Inclusion of the date in FAR 52.216-22(d) would not have changed GAO's analysis of the protest in question

• Right.

6. Task orders are not stand alone contracts and once an IDIQ has expired (rendering the contract "no longer effective), the delivery under a Task Order is irrelevant

• Right, task orders are not stand-alone contracts.  However, a contractor must honor any task order properly issued during the effective period or ordering period, and the Government cannot exercise an option after the end date of the parent IDIQ contract's effective period.  The date of the para. ( d ) fill-in is irrelevant for purpose of when an order may be issued.

Summarily, legal counsel is strongly criticizing the idea of setting an IDIQ's "effective date" by way of the fill-in text in FAR 52.216-22.

• RIght.  You absolutely should not try to use the fill-in date for para. ( d ) as the end date of the parent IDIQ contract's effective period or ordering period -- that is not the purpose of the fill-in.

 

 

If not FAR 52.216-22, where would you indicate that task orders can be issued which include options that exist beyond the ordering period (and thus the "effective period")?

Would this be something addressed in a CLIN instead, or is exercising an option somehow close enough to issuing another task order that it would still need to fall within the established ordering period (presumably five years, in my situation).

Is it a fool's errand to even plan to do such a thing?

I was hoping for Vern's input, as he seems to be recommending the use of FAR 52.216-22 as a mechanism to allow for task orders with options that would be exercised beyond the ordering period of the IDIQ.

The entirety of paragraph (d) seems to provide the basis for allowing task orders beyond the ordering period (assume an ordering period of five years where a task order lasting five years - a one year basic plus four one year options - can be issued in years two through five of the ordering period).

Does an exercised option for performance of service for another year, counts as issuing another order for performance? Nothing in FAR 17 seems to suggest that. 

You need to decide if you're talking about task orders under FSS schedule contracts or task orders under other IDIQ contracts.  

If the former, you're on a fool's errand.  The GSA rules are clear, and the GAO bid protest decision just reinforced, that you cannot exercise an option on a task order under a FSS schedule contract after the expiration of the FSS schedule contract. 

Jamaal:

When does such a contract expire? What event marks its "expiration"?

3 hours ago, ji20874 said:

You need to decide if you're talking about task orders under FSS schedule contracts or task orders under other IDIQ contracts.  

If the former, you're on a fool's errand.  The GSA rules are clear, and the GAO bid protest decision just reinforced, that you cannot exercise an option on a task order under a FSS schedule contract after the expiration of the FSS schedule contract. 

I completely agree: the GAO's decision on the protest makes perfect sense to me. The terms of the FSS were clearly presented; the task order unambiguously violated the terms of the FSS (and ordering guide).

The issue I face is that legal counsel is applying the circumstances in the protest to IDIQs in such a way where, since the task order was found to be improper because it included an option which exceeded the ordering period, any instance where a task order features an option which exceeds the ordering period is necessarily improper no matter any other terms of the IDIQ.

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Jamaal:

When does such a contract expire? What event marks its "expiration"?

Vern:

Not sure which contract you are referencing so I'll assume we are talking about an IDIQ in general terms. I believe an IDIQ expires when all of the contractual obligations have been fulfilled (deliverables) or passed (exercised options, option notifications, etc.) in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. I do not believe a ordering period, contract completion date, or delivery date is necessarily synonymous with expiration.

21 hours ago, Jason Lent said:

The issue I face is that legal counsel is applying the circumstances in the protest to IDIQs in such a way where, since the task order was found to be improper because it included an option which exceeded the ordering period, any instance where a task order features an option which exceeds the ordering period is necessarily improper no matter any other terms of the IDIQ.

Really?  I find that hard to believe.  The non-FSS task order is "improper" even if the option is unexercised?  The whole task order is "improper," both the base and the option?  What does "improper" mean?  The task order must be voided or rescinded?  This seems unreasonable to me.

Maybe the attorneys are only saying that looking forward, you should not include an option in a task order (FSS or non-FSS) which will be exercised after the end of the parent IDIQ contract's effective (or ordering) period?  This seems reasonable to me.  However, if you have a real need to set up non-FSS task orders this way, I am sure you can write text in your parent non-FSS IDIQ contract to meet your need.

Sorry, Jamaal. I addressed my last post to you, but should have addressed it to ji20874.

ji20874:

You said:

Quote

The GSA rules are clear, and the GAO bid protest decision just reinforced, that you cannot exercise an option on a task order under a FSS schedule contract after the expiration of the FSS schedule contract.

When does such a contract expire?

The GAO seems to have used the terms "expire" and "expiration" as the last day of the effective period of the FSS schedule contract -- the last day an agency could issue a task order (or exercise an option under a task order).  In the context of this discussion, that definition works for me, and I used the term in my posting with the same meaning that the GAO seems to have used.

4 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Really?  I find that hard to believe.  The non-FSS task order is "improper" even if the option is unexercised?  The whole task order is "improper," both the base and the option?  What does "improper" mean?  The task order must be voided or rescinded?  This seems unreasonable to me.

Maybe the attorneys are only saying that looking forward, you should not include an option in a task order (FSS or non-FSS) which will be exercised after the end of the parent IDIQ contract's effective (or ordering) period?  This seems reasonable to me.  However, if you have a real need to set up non-FSS task orders this way, I am sure you can write text in your parent non-FSS IDIQ contract to meet your need.

Well the task order off the FSS in AllWorld was found to be improper, with the inclusion of the impossible option as part of the reason it was found improper. I imagine the need to re-evaluate the proposals with the correct number of options (apparently zero) is what drove the decision in that aspect. 

My circumstance involves writing an IDIQ where the intent is for task orders to be able to include options beyond the five year ordering period. Legal counsel believes this to be impossible (our method of addressing this concern would be the fill-in at FAR 52.216-22, as discussed above) and has not revealed their concern until the release of the AllWorld decision.

Considering all of this, I have posed the question to the forum (among my other questions): if FAR 52.216-22 wouldn't be the appropriate place to explicitly state task orders can be placed with options that extend out to 5 years beyond the last date that new task orders can be placed, where else would it be?

1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

The GAO seems to have used the terms "expire" and "expiration" as the last day of the effective period of the FSS schedule contract -- the last day an agency could issue a task order (or exercise an option under a task order).  In the context of this discussion, that definition works for me, and I used the term in my posting with the same meaning that the GAO seems to have used.

Why is the effective period of the IDIQ the last date of the ordering period, barring the contract's terms specifically saying "you shall not issue any task orders which have options beyond the end of the ordering period"?

I should re-iterate: 

Legal counsel is taking the GAO decision regarding the task order off an FSS and applying it to an IDIQ we have in the works. The focus of the objection is regarding the ability of our customers (other contracting offices) to issue task orders which include options beyond the five-year ordering period. We attempted to address this by way of FAR 52.216-22(d) being five years after the end of the ordering period. Legal counsel has rejected this.

 

EDIT: the GAO's use of "expired" were used such in their decision was consistent with the end of the ordering period only because FAR 52.216-22(d) in the FSS stated so, and the ordering guide stated that orders cannoy options exceeding the ordering period of the IDIQ.

That part of the protest was sustained because it violated the terms of the FSS and was contrary to the ordering guide (as well as a conversation between the FSS contracting officer and the Air Force contracting officer).

On February 19, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jason Lent said:

Summarily, legal counsel is strongly criticizing the idea of setting an IDIQ's "effective date" by way of the fill-in text in FAR 52.216-22. In fact, I am lead to expect this "ruling" by the various legal offices will impact DOD contracts significantly, requiring contracting officers to come up with a variety of complex "work-arounds".  Is there something I never learned or never understood with regards how FAR 52.216-22 works?

So Jason wants to know why his legal counsel objects to setting an IDIQ's "effective date" in the fill-in text of FAR 52.216-22. I don't know why, but I can think of two reasons. Take a close look at FAR 52.216-22:

1. The phrase "effective date" does not appear in the clause. Paragraph (a) refers to "the period stated, in the Schedule" during which the contract is effective, and paragraph (d) mentions an "effective period." You need two dates in order to specify a period, the date on which the period begins and the date on which it ends. There is only one fill-in space in the clause, in paragraph (d), and it calls for only a single date, which is supposed to be a date that is presumably after the last day of the effective period, so you cannot enter the effective period in that space without changing the language in the clause, which would require a FAR deviation.  
2. Moreover, paragraph (a) says that the effective period is specified "in the Schedule." It does not say "in paragraph (d)." Look at FAR 15.204-1, Table 15-1. The "schedule" includes Sections A through H. It does not include Section I, "Contract Clauses." According to the FAR clauses matrix, FAR 52.216-22 goes in Section I. So don't put the effective period in FAR 52.216-22. Put it where it's supposed to be -- in the Schedule.

I'm not sure what you are supposed to do if the contract is not organized in the Uniform Contract Format and there is no section labeled "Schedule." In a contract for commercial items I suppose you could put it in a note in SF 1449, Block 19, "Schedule of Supplies or Services," or put it in an addendum to FAR 52.212-4.

14 hours ago, Jason Lent said:

I should re-iterate: 

Legal counsel is taking the GAO decision regarding the task order off an FSS and applying it to an IDIQ we have in the works. The focus of the objection is regarding the ability of our customers (other contracting offices) to issue task orders which include options beyond the five-year ordering period. We attempted to address this by way of FAR 52.216-22(d) being five years after the end of the ordering period. Legal counsel has rejected this.

Setting the date in paragraph (d) of the clause five years after the end of the ordering period would not solve the problem. GAO wrote a muddled decision, but the key holdings in the decision with respect to this issue seem to be that GSA (1) could not exercise a task order option under an IDIQ contract after the contract ordering period has expired, and (2) could not use an option in a task order to change the ordering period of the contract under which the order was issued. Task orders are subordinate to contracts. Contracts are not subordinate to task orders. That strikes me as common sense.

On February 19, 2016 at 11:57 AM, ji20874 said:

For purposes of para. ( d ) of FAR 52.216-22, the term "effective period" is the same as what practitioners often call the "ordering period" -- they are the same. 

Well, ji20874, that's not necessarily true, for the reasons I gave in Item 2 above. FAR 52.216-22 says in no uncertain terms that the "effective period" is stated in the Schedule. The ordering period is stated in FAR clause 52.216-18, which does not go into the Schedule. An agency might choose to make its effective period the same as the ordering period, but there is no reason to think that they must. To the extent that GAO may have considered the "effective period" to be the same as the "ordering period," which they seem to have done -- they, too, were wrong, unless something in the FSS contract made them the same. (The FAR is a mess when it comes to IDIQ contracts. Why does 52.216-22 say "effective period" instead of ordering period? Effective in what sense? What's the function of the effective period?)

It's not entirely clear to me to what extent GAO's decision applies to non-FSS contracts, but my suspicion is that it does. 

These kinds of kerfuffles happen because contracting people and agency lawyers don't always know what they're doing and don't always pay close attention to boilerplate language. It happens also because people come up with goofy schemes, like including performance extension options in task orders. Contracting people are willing to do anything to avoid the contractor selection/contract award process.

I'm not recommending a solution to the problem, because I don't know what solutions Jason's lawyers would consider to be acceptable, and I don't want to know. It's their job to recommend a solution. Lawyers are supposed to solve legal problems, not just point them out.

In order to make sense of the text, I choose to understand "effective period" in para. ( d ) of FAR 52.216-22 as synonymous with the "ordering period" -- it works for me -- otherwise, as you point out, it wouldn't make sense, and I want to interpret the FAR in a way that makes sense.

ji20874:

It doesn't make sense the way you are interpreting it.

It's one thing to say that you chose to make the effective period conterminous with the ordering period. It's another thing entirely to say, as you appear to do, that the clause should be interpreted to mean that they are one and the same. Among other things, that would be inconsistent with the express language in the clause, which is never a good thing. I can't see how that works for anybody, but you can do as you please. I recommend a different approach.

According to the plain language of FAR, what is supposed to happen is that the CO enters an effective period in the Schedule -- maybe Section F of the UCF:

Effective Period: The effective period of this contract, as referenced in clause XX, FAR 52.216-22, "Indefinite-Quanity," paragraphs (a) and (d), is from 0600hrs DD/MM/YYYY to 1800hrs DD/MM/YYYY.

It doesn't matter how long the period is as long as long as it is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Schedule. (FAR provides no guidance.) The date entered in clause paragraph (d) should then depend on the kinds of tasks that are to be issued under the contract. It could be set 12 months after the end of the effective date, or longer. All that matters about that paragraph (d) date is that it be long enough after the last day of the ordering period to permit completion of an order issued on the last day.

I think that the key to the GAO decision you all have been discussing is that it appears to say, albeit not clearly, that GSA could not exercise an option in a task order after the end of the contract ordering period. It does not expressly say that, but I think that is what the GAO meant. By doing as I described in the above paragraph, a non-GSA CO could at least make an argument that an option in a task order can be exercised at any time within the effective period of the contract, including on a date after the expiration of the ordering period, as long as performance would not continue beyond the date in clause paragraph (d).

The contract should contain a clause permitting the inclusion of extension options in orders, stating that the exercise of any such options will not be considered the issuance of a new order, and stating that such options may be exercised after expiration of the ordering period. Thus, the CO could maintain that any competitor for the contract or the order knew or should have know about the clause. That would support an argument that the option is within the scope of the competition. As long as it is done within the contract effective period, exercising such an order option would not modify the contract. Those measures should give GAO reason to pause when deciding a protest. I think they would likely succeed at the COFC. If a CO were to interpret or make the effective period coterminous with the ordering period, as you would, he or she couldn't make that argument.

Vern (and others), thank you for the comments.

Quote

1. The phrase "effective date" does not appear in the clause. Paragraph (a) refers to "the period stated, in the Schedule" during which the contract is effective, and paragraph (d) mentions an "effective period." You need two dates in order to specify a period, the date on which the period begins and the date on which it ends. There is only one fill-in space in the clause, in paragraph (d), and it calls for only a single date, which is supposed to be a date that is presumably after the last day of the effective period, so you cannot enter the effective period in that space without changing the language in the clause, which would require a FAR deviation.  
2. Moreover, paragraph (a) says that the effective period is specified "in the Schedule." It does not say "in paragraph (d)." Look at FAR 15.204-1, Table 15-1. The "schedule" includes Sections A through H. It does not include Section I, "Contract Clauses." According to the FAR clauses matrix, FAR 52.216-22 goes in Section I. So don't put the effective period in FAR 52.216-22. Put it where it's supposed to be -- in the Schedule.

With regards to Item 1, my own sloppy commenting supplied the ambiguity. The contract documents refer strictly to the "effective period", which I should have referenced instead of "effective date". The phrasing of FAR 52.216-22, where paragraph (d) requests a fill-in date, fueled said sloppy commenting.

With regards to Item 2, this was my initial contribution when discussion of legal counsel's concerns first came up, something to the tune of identifying, in each CLIN associated with a task order, that orders may be placed from 1 October 20X1 to 30 September 20X2 and may include options to bring the total length of performance to no more than 60 months or whatever the date would be five years after 30 September 20X2. Your suggestion of instead putting that language in Section F is cleaner and more appropriate.

When you said:

Quote

It doesn't matter how long the period is as long as long as it is clearly and unambiguously stated in the Schedule. (FAR provides no guidance.) The date entered in clause paragraph (d) should then depend on the kinds of tasks that are to be issued under the contract. It could be set 12 months after the end of the effective date, or longer. All that matters about that paragraph (d) date is that it be long enough after the last day of the ordering period to permit completion of an order issued on the last day.

it seems you're saying that 52.216-22(d) can say what we intended it to (that is, five years after the last day of the ordering period), but it also needs to be partnered with a statement in the schedule setting the actual effective date, as you recommended bolded in your post. This makes sense.

 

Jason: I made some revisions to the last paragraph of my last post since you read it. You may want to read it again.

Vern 

7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Jason: I made some revisions to the last paragraph of my last post since you read it. You may want to read it again.

Vern 

I have; so I understand --

1. The schedule will need to set the effective period;

2. FAR 52.216-22 (d) will need to reference the end of the effective period (in this situation) in accordance with the schedule; and

3. The clause governing ordering procedures (or in our case, the addendum to FAR 52.212-4) which addresses options in task orders being (a) not new orders and (b) able to be exercised beyond the ordering period of the IDIQ.