.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Multiple Award'.
Found 5 results
-
Hello, Here is my situation that I was hoping wifcon could help me with. I have a multiple award IDIQ that was solicited as a total small business set aside. Award was made to three small businesses to make up the multiple award “pool”. One of the vendors was bought out by a large business making them now other than small. I have seen similar wifcon discussions but none seem to answer my issue. Can the now large business still compete on IDIQ requirements? FAR 16.505(b) states fair opportunity must be given, FAR 19.301-2 states that it does not change the terms and conditions of the contract, but does not FAR 19.502-2(b)(1) apply that I have two other small business vendors must I not set aside? Thank you! Similar Discussions: -
I have a situation with a recently awarded multiple award contract. This award was made on the basis of lowest price, technically acceptable and there were a few technically acceptable offerors that did not receive the award due to price. Three days after the awards were fully executed, one of the awardees stated that they could not do business with our agency because a few of their clients who were adverse to agency would not sign a waiver for them to work with the Agency. In the solicitation, there are disclosure requirements for the offerors regarding organizational conflict of interest and the offeror is required to certify whether it is aware or not aware of any potential organizational conflict of interest and the disclosure statement shall describe how any such conflict can be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated. The awardee did state in their proposal that they did represent clients that were adverse to the Agency, but did not believe such representation would preclude them from representation of the Authority and if given the opportunity, they would obtain waivers from these clients. I sent the contract to them to review, sign and send back to me to fully execute and gave them three days to do so, in that time, this awardee made no mention of the inability to obtain waivers from their adverse clients. So, when they signed the contract, they signed it knowing they had not obtained the waivers as they disclosed they would need to do in order to avoid, mitigate or neutralize organizational conflict of interest. So, my question is, can this contract be considered void ab initio? I have found a few GAO cases that discusses void ab initio. They are from the 70s and 80s and the scenarios aren’t necessary exactly the same, but each have stated the position that once a contract comes into existence, even if improperly awarded, it should not be canceled, that is, regarded as void ab initio, unless the illegality of the award is “plain” or “palpable.” As stated in another GAO case, Warren Brothers Roads Company v. US, the test of plainly or palpably illegal award is whether the award was made contrary to statute or regulation because of some action or statement by the contractor was on direct notice that the procedures being followed were inconsistent with statutory or regulatory requirements. If the test is not met, a contract may not be canceled, but can only be terminated for the convenience of the Government. Would the awardee knowingly signing a contract when their organizational conflict of interest not being mitigated, neutralized or avoided constitute as passing the test? Thanks in advance for your help!
-
Three multiple award IDIQs were awarded a few years ago to procure systems for testing and possible deployment if it passed testing requirements. The agency intended to compete among the multiple awardees to determine which systems to deploy. It turns out only one awardee passed testing, so the agency closed out the contracts with the awardees who had products that did not pass testing. Given there is only one contract to order supplies and services, is this contract still considered a multiple award contract? I'm trying to determine if I need to execute a justification to procure using exception to fair opportunity or not when placing an order under the IDIQ with the awardee who did pass testing. It's been recommended I complete one just in case, but I'm not convinced it's necessary since there are no other awardees to give fair opportunity to. Appreciate your thoughts and insight in advance.
-
Would love some input here from any knowledgeable folks about this. If an agency intends to issue a single solicitation for multiple A-E services IDIQ contracts, is that a "multiple award" as defined under FAR 16.505 and does the fair opportunity process apply at the task order level? FAR 16.5 exempts AE IDC's from the statutory multiple award preference, I get that. And the Brooks A-E Act as implemented by FAR 36.6 applies, i get that too. But by logic, if one solicitation results in multiple IDC's it seems that's a "multiple award" situation. And as for Fair Opportunity, I'd think the most appropriate COA would be to articulate in the synopsis how the agency will provide fair opportunity at the task order level by selecting the best A-E for each particulat task order SOW (using competency/qualifications criteria not price). In my experience this issue is consistently something that is discussed inconclusively, since, to me at least, the FAR is a bit convoluted on the topic. The DFARS used to have instruction under citation 216.505-70 (it was ¶(a)(4) I believe) that specificially exempted A-E contracts from fair opportunity under the IDIQ ordering process--however sometime in 2012 or 2013 that content was removed. The USACE's Architect-Engineering Contracting Guide (EP 715-1-7), which was updated in 2012 states at page 4-9 that the Contracting Officer must document the file as to why a particular contractor is selected. Although that's not policy that applies to any non-USACE contracting agencies, they are considered to be one of the premiere A-E contracting agencies across the federal Government. The EP also provides a standard synopsis template (appendix O) that states verbatim, "If multiple IDCs, state method to be used to allocate task orders among contracts when two or more IDCs contain the same or similar scopes of work such that a particular task order might be awarded under more than one IDC. See FAR 16.505 for guidance." Anyone have any experience with this issue? -
My company was awarded an IDIQ from the Gov't as part of a multiple prime IDIQ vehicle. We are currently weighing whether to issue our subcontractors a BOA or an IDIQ. Since each task order at the prime level (there are multiple primes) will be competed and our team will need to stay very flexible in order to win, I believe that a BOA would probably be more appropriate than an IDIQ Subcontract. We envision that labor rates within the established labor categories for each task order will need to be different depending on the SOW and the price to win. If we used an IDIQ in lieu of a BOA then any pricing that we established (labor rates) would most likely need to be discounted once the task orders are released/competed (so I don't think an IDIQ would be as appropriate). Another reason I don't believe the IDIQ would be appropriate is that my company would not be able to promise a minimum and would not do a very good job in estimating a maximum subcontract value. In order to stay as flexible as possible, I believe a BOA would be the right choice for my company to issue to subcontractors but I am seeking your help in determining possible pitfalls associated with BOAs (vs using an IDIQ subcontract). I understand that a BOA is not a contract and the subcontractor is under no legal obligation to accept a task order (or purchase order if that the preferred terminology when speaking about a BOA). But once my company issues a TO and the subcontractor accepts (either formally in writing or by commencing work), then they do have an obligation to complete that work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the BOA, incorporated docs and any instructions included in the TO. Both vehicles are used to streamline orders however I believe there is much more in setting up an IDIQ than a BOA because the IDIQ would contain pricing to be evaluated and a ceiling value which would set off many threshold related administrative work (FFATA cert, EEO, CAS, etc.). I realize that with a BOA, the administrative part would need to be completed with each TO award depending on the value of each award however I think this is a risk worth taking since we can't really predict how many task orders we will actually win or the values. I know that the values can be as low as 100k and as much as hundreds of millions. Does anyone have any experiences to share with respect to services based BOAs in lieu of IDIQs? Any concerns one might have with putting a BOA in place with their subs in this scenario? Oh yeah, workshare to the subs is not an issue in our situation as my company did not make any promises to any of the subs. From DAU website (https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=22&cgiQuestionID=18517): The key distinction in their application is that Government is in a position where it can commit itself to a minimum quantity when awarding an IDIQ contract, whereas the Government may not be able to commit to a minimum quantity when setting up a BOA. Further, BOAs are commonly used to streamline ordering when using simplified acquisition procedures. IDIQ contracts are commonly used to expedite the ordering process for requirements of any dollar value. The ceiling for some IDIQ contracts is in the billions, with individual orders under those contracts in the hundreds of millions. Just curious - Why are BOAs commonly used when using simplified acquisition procedures as stated above...why would there be a limit on the dollar value of a BOA?