vsup

One last question on this topic. If the agency has MATOC's would this change the answers to any of these questions when only one IDIQ MATOC holder would be over their capacity. If not, are there any court cases that you all know of that involve MATOC's.

The funds are no year funds so this is not an issue in this instance.

To add more background to the discussion, The work associated with this Task Order was originally competed amongst all of the multiple award IDIQ holders, in accordance with FAR 16.605(b)(1). In the Request for Qualifications letters, all Offerors were informed that the A/E Scope of Work includes the serviced noted below, which may be contracted for via one or more independent task orders. 1) PreDesign Services (PD) 2) Schematic Design Services (SD) 3) Design Development Services (DD) 4) Construction Document Services (CD) 5) A/E Construction Administration Services (Title III) 6) Possible Supplemental Services The IDIQ contracts were awarded in April of 2021; however, upon the need for the extension to the Title III task order the capacity on the IDIQ was checked to determine if there was sufficient capacity only to learn the IDIQ's capacity had already been met in less than one year. The capacity was set at $10M; however, due to the Great American Outdoors Act funding the agency received, the capacity was exceeded rather quickly as these actions were not accounted for when the IDIQ's were solicited and awarded. As the original RFQ sent to all of the IDIQ holders included the verbiage denoted above advising them of the services that would be required over the course of the project and that one or more independent task orders could be issued toward that end, I believe we have met and satisfied the CICA requirements. The only question remains is how to complete the modification knowing that the ceiling limit of the IDIQ has been exceeded. I agree with comments in the string that reprocuring could jeopardize the construction contract. When the task order was issued it was assumed that the construction would end on a certain date so the Title III services task order was written accordingly. As is sometimes the case, issues arise during construction which could not be foreseen which delays certain aspects of the work from being completed. We are looking at a four month extension; therefore, it seems impractical and not in the best interest of the Government to go to the costly expense of reprocurement and following A/E Brooks Act procedures which in some cases can take way longer than the prescribed four months needed to complete construction. In my opinion, it would seem that the risk to the successful completion of the construction contract and possible costs for Government delay due to the Government's inability to timely respond to RFI requests, submittal review, etc. would not be in the Government's best interest. From reading the various GAO cases provided, it would appear that a simple J&A would suffice to document the harm to the Government if we did not extend the Title III services versus completing a re-procurement. I have seen a couple of examples on SAM.gov recently where various agencies have completed J&A's to lift the ceiling limit of the IDIQ.

In this instance that is exactly what we are going - using the A/E "Designer of Record" for technical support during construction, shop drawings, RFI's, submittals reviews, etc. The QA is being performed by an outside Construction Management company who is separate and apart from the A/E firm.

I am also curious if they are any GAO or other court rulings that indicate it is acceptable to exceed the IDIQ contract ceiling. I have done some searching in these venues but have been unable to locate any cases relative to this topic.

Yes we are wanting to increase the value of the task order and extend the period of performance so services can continue through the end of the construction contract. The Task Order was awarded under fair opportunity with all multiple award contract holders being given an opportunity to provide these services. The base IDIQ contract has met its ceiling and by increasing the value of the task order would take the costs over the IDIQ contract ceiling. The work to be performed is in-scope - it's just a matter of continuing the exact same services until completion of the construction contract.

I am currently working on a modification to an existing Task Order for A/E Services. The A/E was selected utilizing competition under the Multiple Award contract holders established for the PD/SD and CD/DD. Following completion of the full design, the construction contract was awarded and a new task order was issued for the Title III services during construction; however, the Task Order now needs to be extended as the construction contract is taking longer than anticipated. The IDIQ ceiling capacity has been met so the question is whether the Task Order can be extended to add additional costs for continued Title III services until the construction contract has ended which will exceed the IDIQ ceiling capacity?