govt2310

To ji20874: Thanks for clarifying the meaning of "maximum." I didn't know that! Good point.

Another twist! Let's say the CO screwed up the language in FAR 52.216-18 by mixing it up with language from FAR 52.216-19. Let's say the contract contains FAR 52.216-19 with the correct language, just on another page of the Contract. FAR 52.216-19 contains paragraph "d," which states that "the Contractor shall honor any order exceeding the maximum order limitations," unless they give notice to the Government that they don't intend to fulfill the order, and upon receipt of said notice, the Government is free to acquire the supplies/services from "another source." So this means its ok to iss

Well, now there's a twist! Say the Master IDIQ Contract contains FAR 52.216-18 ORDERING (OCT 1995). However, somehow the CO did something that resulted in the language in that clause being changed. The original FAR 52.216-18 reads: FAR 52.216-18 ORDERING (OCT 1995) Indefinite Quantity (OCT 1995) (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.

Vern and C Culham: Thanks! These are all good points.

Ok, I see where Vern and ji20874 might be coming from. Well, let me throw this out there: How about taking the position that both A and B were already given fair opportunity because, at time of the original Master IDIQ Contract Competition, it was already known to all offerors that there would be a price ceiling/maximum quantity on each contract awarded, so all offerors were on notice of the possibility of it turning out later down the road that one awardee's ceiling/maximum might be reached before the other awardee's?

If the agency were to give notice to A and B, knowing that A doesn't have a chance because its contract has hit the price ceiling/maximum quantity already, Contractor A could file a protest at GAO. GAO would find that Contractor A is an interested party. Why? See REEL COH, a GAO decision from January 2020. In REEL COH, the protester, who was ineligible for award (due to a technically unacceptable proposal), challenged the award to the awardee, and GAO found that, even though the agency properly found the protester to be technically unacceptable, protester was still an interested party

Yes, by "price ceiling," I mean the "maximum" quantity mentioned in FAR 52.216-22(b). For the total value of the future task order that I am asking about, assume the amount is > $10 million. Say it is $20 million.

There is no time to establish a new multiple award IDIQ. I believe GAO has stated in the past that, if the ceiling on a task order has been reached, if the agency were to go past that, even if the contractor agrees to waive the ceiling, that that is indeed out of scope of the original competition for the MAC. I don't have an answer for "what was the value of the original acquisition" and "what was the maximum on each contractor's contract." Sorry. Well, since Contractor A is out, this brings me back to my original question: Can the agency just make award to Contractor B for a n

Say an agency awarded a multiple award IDIQ. There are two contractors who got award. Each contract has a price ceiling. What if contractor A's ceiling is maxed out, so it is ineligible to get award of any future task orders. Can the agency just issue task orders to contractor B without doing a "fair opportunity" competition?

Oh wait, I did some more digging and found this Federal Register entry from June 30, 2020 for a Proposed Rule. Is this it? I just want to be sure. Federal Acquisition Regulation: Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds 85 FR 39146 And the Final Rule was issued on October 2, 2020: Federal Acquisition Regulation: Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds 85 FR 62485

I noticed that FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) as shown on acquisition.gov now says "Orders exceeding $6 million." I thought the threshold was $5.5 million. Was the threshold raised? If so, can someone post the Federal Register link? I searched on govinfo.gov but couldn't find any such amendment to the FAR. Is this a typo in the FAR? Here is what I see when I look at FAR 16.505((b)(1)(iv):

Thanks everyone! To answer joel hoffman's question, let's say this is a small business set-aside, and the JV was a mentor-protege JV. So you raise a good point: is the work being done by the remaining JV member that qualifies as small? Good point. Regarding C Culham's comment, thanks, I will check those links out.

The contract is not over. The contractor -- the JV -- is still supposed to be performing the services on the contract. Let's say that one of the JV members is continuing to perform these services by taking over the duties of the other JV member. What damages has the government suffered? Well, we now have uncertainty on whether the contract will continue to be performed in the future, as the Period of Performance expiration date still has a long time to go.

Let's say the contract did NOT require the JV to notify the government if the JV dissolved. My concern is, who is legally responsible to continue performing the contract? If the JV is dissolved, then the contractor no longer exists, and there is no party called "contractor" that is legally required to continue doing the work. I know that, if a contract is awarded to a JV, and it turns out the JV never existed, that contract is void ab initio. But what happens if the JV did exist at the time of contract award, but during contract performance, it ceases to exist?

What happens if a JV is awarded a contract, then during performance of the contract, the JV members have a dispute and then dissolve their JV, but don't tell the agency but just keep performing the contract? Then later, the agency finds out from other news sources about the JV no longer existing.