Pappy

Thank you for your time and guidance! Much appreciated.

Yes, I can see that now. I guess I am just creating an IDIQ in PO format.

Joel, yes to your question, but with incremental ordering up to the max qty. Don, Agree, but incremental funding came up and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

I agree Don and intended to use that very clause. Thank you.

Ok, I see that you don't think it is providing any benefit of reduced admin burden, so let's agree to disagree on that point. With respect to the clause defining the CO authority to mod the contract to add funds and increase quantity, I would simply include in the original solicitation language that makes it clear that we have the unilateral right to order any quantity up to the NTE limit at said unit price at any time during the PoP of the PO. Fairly simple and straight forward. Do you have any advice on the incremental funding that the limitation of funds clauses won't cover?

Vern, I understand that I can write an IDIQ and cut delivery orders; however, my thought was to create a more streamlined approach for a single commodity with an unknown exact quantity required. The initial PO award would identify within the info CLIN 0001, the maximum NTE quantity of 200 units @ $xxx/unit for all units ordered and the initial obligation would be placed as sub-CLIN AA with an order of 100 units at the established fixed unit price. Any additional orders would be added via modification as sub-CLIN AB, AC, etc... Based on the fact that we have established the full scope of the requirement up to 200 units at $XXX/unit creating our total contract value, the contractor would be required to deliver at the agreed upon price as we increase our quantity ordered up to that maximum NTE quantity. I don't see how the contractor can refuse to deliver without being in default. With respect to incremental funding, I do not claim to know much, but do have limited experience with it in my past (this is why I am asking people smarter than me to help). I would add the 232-18 & 19 for availability of funds to cover the fact that I am not fully funded up to the max NTE quantity. Beyond that the limitations of funds clauses appear to be directed toward cost type contracts, so I am not certain what to include. I am trying to save time and meet the mission needs, so if you have a reason why this can't be done, please explain, if it is because we already have a clunky IDIQ process, then I know that. The BPA is another option, but not locked in on delivery and/or price, so I don't like it much, plus it is a little clunky like the IDIQ. (by clunky I mean it is an increased admin burden compared to this simple PO).

I did not intend to include option CLIN's, just one info CLIN with a NTE quantity and fixed unit price, then as funding becomes available, add sub-CLIN's (AA, AB, etc...) to increase funding and total quantity ordered.

We are considering a not-to-exceed quantity purchase order for a recurring supply item with a one year period of performance, with the intent to fund incrementally as the supply is needed. We will award with a substantial initial quantity as the minimum amount and only order more if funds become available (i.e. fallout money). Funding would be added via modification as additional sub-CLIN's to increase the quantity needed up to the NTE limit. Does anyone see a problem with this approach vice an IDIQ? The advantage would be elimination of a new task order for each order and a faster response to obligation.

Thank you all for your contributions. Much appreciated.

So, in a practical application of consideration (or lack thereof) which happens frequently, a purchase order is awarded (signed by the contractor, even though it doesn't have to be), the contractor fails to deliver on time and the contracting officer believes that they must extend the contract delivery date to maintain an active contract. The contractor is unwilling to provide a discount or any other type of consideration to compensate for an agreed upon later delivery, so the CO just extends the delivery date without consideration. What is wrong with just leaving the contractor in a late delivery status on the PO?