Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Option'.
Found 9 results
I am working on a follow on IDIQ for general support services ( not Advisory and Assistance Service or IT) and historically like the current generation the Base IDIQ had a 5 year base and no options with TO's awarded with a one year base and 4 one year options. My thought process right now is why don't we do a 5 year base+ one 5 year option and to be compliant with the FAR when it comes to the TO's to then re-compete the TO's as needed for the option period and perhaps not exercise the option for underperforming contractors and have an open season to bring on new contractors as needed to compete. I don't think for the TO's we could have a similar structure and that they would need to be rec-competed? Currently and in the past, planning would commence towards the end of year 3 and I think it would be save immense resources if we could save a lot time with the scenario I outlined above. The value for 5 years is about 700 MM, so with the option period I outlined it would have a value of over a billion and thus require more oversight and sign offs ( which some people would rather avoid). Thoughts? Any examples of similar IDIQ's with such a structure? Thanks!
Overlapping Period of Performance
C. Rich posted a topic in Contract AdministrationI have researched to better understand the Government and allowing overlapping Period of Performances. I am working on a subcontract for DoD services where, per direction of Govt to Prime, one option year starts before the other ends. I was under the impression that this was not allowable because essential the Govt would be paying for the same service. I search FAR part 17 and 42 hoping to find language that does not permit this, let alone speak to it, and came up empty. Can someone point me in the right direction in FAR or to a GAO case for overlapping PoP references? Thanks for any insight provided.
TO POP Extension, executed after base expires
lin8iv posted a topic in Contract AdministrationI'm trying to find a reference in the FAR as to whether or not I can execute a period of performance (POP) extension on a Task Order (TO), when the base contract has expired. TO POP was selected beyond the base contract completion date IAW FAR 17-204(d), however the TO has not expired and we are looking to extend the POP, but the base contract expired a few months ago.
Playing with new IT and potential new way to procure
quango posted a topic in Contract Award ProcessSo our IT guys have set up an “incubation lab”. This will allow them to play with potential tools already available commercially, and see what breaks (of their stuff or ours) and what we like. Or to consider whether we can justify building it ourselves, as opposed to buying it. Now they want to do something like this— Release a single solicitation Make (basically) identical awards to, say, 4 companies. With option years. and 3 stages. Potential XXX gazillion dollars for each award. Initial period, for EVALUATION IN OUR ENVIRONMENT (XXX thousand dollars, a few months) Follow on for FURTHER DEMONSTRATION OF FURTHER CAPABILITIES (significantly more money. More months) And then IMPLEMENTATION (Potential XXX gazillion dollars for each award, up to 4 additional years.) Fleshed out a bit-- Initial period, for EVALUATION IN OUR ENVIRONMENT Each company will come in and show off, and let us play with their toys for a few months. We will pay for their expenses. Follow on for DEMONSTRATION OF FURTHER CAPABILITIES If we like Company A and B, we can exercise an option to have JUST THOSE companies come in for more playtime. Again, paid, but more money, and a longer time. BUT the same options for companies C&D are NOT exercised. But these are options, so those companies cannot object. (as opposed to a new award) After whatever time it takes, we decide we like company A more, because it is “friendlier” (note: not a defensible argument for sole source, but often what I am given) For IMPLEMENTATION we exercise options with COMPANY A only. And company B cannot object, because those are OPTIONS. Have you come across anything like this? Any pros or cons leap out? NOTE: We do NOT have any of those special OTHER TRANSACTIONAL AUTHORITIES that some other agencies have been given. Just vanilla civilian agency FAR. NOTE: We have looked at and rejected the USDS 8(a) Digital Service Initiative for “Select the Tech”, https://techfarhub.cio.gov/initiatives/8a/. While this may be a great thing for smaller agencies, our guys want to do the eval themselves.
I have a procurement that I am working as the Contract Specialist under DOI that is an IAA for services in which the selling agency (another agency within DOI) provided the draft Statement of Work for us to use in preparing the IAA documents. My agency is the requesting agency. In the draft SOW they provided to me they have included a five year period of performance consisting of a base year and four option years, however they have included the following language regarding the pricing: "3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE - The overall period of performance is estimated to be five year period of time. This agreement is structured as one base year and four option years requiring mutual and annual agreement of the involved agencies, as well as notification and acceptance of potential price changes. 4. COST The cost for the Base Year... is Firm Fixed Price at $XX,XXX. Option periods will be priced closer to the start of the specified option date. " Since one year money is being used we are only able to fund a single year at a time. It is a firm fixed price contract type for non-severable annual services (they perform surveys for us on an annual basis). My question is: is this 'pricing to be provided later' a legitimate approach? I've been under the impression that in accordance with 17.202(c)(1) &(2) that options should be pre-priced at the time of the initial award. The other agency is claiming that 17.2 is only in reference to Contracts and not IAA's. I am not finding anything (within FAR nor DOI policy) that shows that IAA's would be excluded from this part of the FAR. Am I missing something? Either way we would have to issue either a mod or a new IAA each year, but my concern is more about whether or not we can include non priced options in an IAA.
Missed Option but Have a J&A
fedcontract posted a topic in Contract AdministrationI have a question on a topic that has been discussed, but I don't believe it has been discussed with this nuance. We have buyer who notified the contractor of our intent to exercise an option, did the required reviews, and sent to the mod to the KO for review and signature. The KO did not get to signing the mod before the option expired (on a Saturday), and when this was realized two days later on Monday, it was legal's opinion that the contract was over at that point and that there was nothing that we could do to save it. At that point we wrote a J&A and it has been coordinated through legal and the Competition Advocate. They are both good with the J&A, and the contractor has agreed to hold its final option year pricing, terms and conditions; however, there is some disagreement about how to put this new action in place. We (the contracting office) would like to do a bilateral modification to the previous contract so we don't have to transfer GFP and re-write the entire contract, while our legal office is under the opinion that we need to issue an entirely new contract for this action. The GAO cases that address modifications to extend missed options appear to be silent on the issue of "how" to do it properly. They focus on the fact that these can be considered unjustified sole source actions (which ours will not be because we have a J&A), but they appear to remain silent on the issue of whether we can bilaterally extend a contract after the PoP has ended. Any thoughts on this?
Escalation Pricing for Delivery Orders
JGarza posted a topic in Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQsI have an Non-Appropriated Purchasing Agreement (NPA) for Title II Services with the following Period of Performance: Option Year 2: 20 July 2015 through 19 July 2016 Option Year 3: 20 July 2016 through 19 July 2017 There will be a delivery order awarded against the NPA within the next few weeks, so we will be using the option year 2 pricing. The contractor is trying to incorporated "escalation pricing" in his proposal so when the option is exercised on the NPA (next month), the pricing for the order will "automatically" go into affect the same day. The period of performance on the order for Title II Services will be 365 days. The NAFI has already informed the contractor that the order will only incorporate Option Year 2 pricing for the entire duration of the 356 days and will not be changed unless there is a change to the current period of performance (ie. an extension to the order extending it past the 365 days). The contractor is arguing that other delivery orders were issued using this escalated pricing method with other agencies. Is there a statue stating an order placed against an NPA or IDIQ will need to maintain the current base or option year pricing throughout the life of the order?
Non-exercising an option against one awardee
Orion71 posted a topic in Contract AdministrationWe just bought a company that was awarded an IDIQ contract in one of the multiple technical categories in the small business category. The award was for a 2 year base with 3 one year options. The previous owner did not pay one of his sub-contractors. We are in negotiations with the sub-contractor for a payment plan and will use a waiver of liens to solidify the payment plan. The waiver includes liens against the Government. The KO issued a notice not to exercise the next option year. KO's reasoning is financial instability. What options does a contractor have to challenge the non-exercise of the next option year. KO did not state what documentation was acceptable to demonstrate financial stability.
Options within a BPA Call
biscuit posted a topic in Contract Award ProcessWe have a BPA issued under FAR Part 8 for software maintenance with several options years and we're in the last option year. Throughout each option year we're in the practice of issuing calls with firm requirements and also including option items within the same call due to lack of funding. When I questioned why we didn't issue a separate Call when funding became available (instead of including options) I was told that a call is a "contract" and "contracts" can have options. I'm not use to seeing this practice but I can't find anything in the regs that say we can't do this. Thoughts/comments appreciated.