.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'multiple award IDIQ'.
Found 3 results
-
Hello, 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 (particularly a thread from 2018, which came extremely close). Can the now large business still compete on the IDIQ orders? I'm aware of 13 CFR 121.404 but maybe unclear on its application. Some particulars of note: -10 year IDIQ; 3 year base period, 3 year option period, 4 year option period -no order, to date, has included 52.219-13, Notice of Set-Aside of Orders -the IDIQ does not stipulate that all orders will be set-aside for small businesses -all orders are issued via 16.505 (without any similarities to 15) -If I were to choose to include 52.219-13 on a order solicitation, would that inhibit me from soliciting without it included for future orders? I'd like to have the ability to choose to use it sometimes and choose to not use it in other circumstances with the intent of allowing the pool to remain with 3 businesses. -If I were to choose to include that provision on an order solicitation, presumably the one now-large would at that point be required to rerepresent as a large...Would that force them to be a large for a future order even if i were to NOT include the 52.219-13 on a future order? -FAR 19.301-2 states that it does not change the terms and conditions of the contract, but i'm also wondering how that fits in with the term of the IDIQ being a total set-aside for SBs at time of issuance of the IDIQ. I guess the question on this point is, if they rerepresent as a large at any point in a total small business set-aside IDIQ, do I have to remove them from the vehicle or can they stay on the IDIQ with the catch that the agency can no longer get SB credit? does 13 CFR 121.404(g)(4) allow me to keep them in the pool? -If I receive a recertification from the now-large prior to issuance of an order, and I choose to not include the 52.219-13 clause, can they still compete for the order? ref 13 CFR 121.404(g)(2). Or does the recertification as other than small immediately preclude them from future orders? 13 CFR 121.404(g)(4) seems to allow me to pick and choose when to utilize the 52.219-13 and set some orders aside and let other orders be for any one in the pool (including a potentially now-large). -
I'm a Contracting Officer tasked with soliciting for a construction project that involves a brand name specification under the CICA waiver authority under FAR 6.302-1 Only One Responsible Source. The item is a major component of the construction project, but the value of the item is expected NOT to exceed $700k (the total construction project will be much larger). My read of the regs has always been that a 6.302-1 CICA waiver justification must include evidence that a notice of intent was posted to the GPE and interested sources responding to that notice were considered in accordance with FAR 6.302-1(d)(2), FAR 5.201, and FAR 5.207. HOWEVER, we are planning to solicit the project as a task order RFP under a multiple award IDC, and so the question was raised, does CICA and FAR Part 6 even apply? FAR 5.202(a)(6) provides an exception to the FAR 5.201 synopsis requirement for IDC orders and refers to FAR 16.505(a)(4). FAR 16.505(a)(4) states that items peculiar to one manufacturer must be justified in accordance with FAR 16.505( b)(2) (aka Fair Opportunity Exception). BOTTOM LINE: I've nearly concluded that FAR Subpart 16.5 may be the applicable regulation and not FAR Subpart 6.3, and so a FAR 16.505(b )(2) Fair Opportunity Exception would be required instead of a FAR 6.303 Justification. But I have a nagging suspicion that that's not quite right. My hesitations with a FAR 16.505(b )(2) Fair Opportunity Exception are that #1 I can't quite see how this is would restrict competition among the IDC contractors, so I can't really see how the concept of "fair opportunity" is at play. And, #2 I'm surprised to find that there is no requirement at FAR 16.505( b)(2) to post a notice of intent to the GPE--since in our situation for a brand name component, it seems to me that would be compelling information to include in the justification if we get no acceptable response from industry. And I'm also surprised because FAR 16.505 ( b)(2)(d) DOES require that the final approved Fair Opportunity Exception be posted to the GPE within 14 days (for orders >SAT). Whereas under FAR Subpart 6.3, for brand name justifications, all that is required is to attach the final approved J&A with the solicitation. I suppose that's because Fair Opportunity Exceptions under 16.505( b)(2) would never be publicized if only distributed with the solicitation because the solicitation isn't made public--it's only sent the multiple IDC contractors. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Appreciate the feedback.
-
Does the multiple award preference at FAR 16.504 apply to sole source awards pursuant to FAR Subpart 19.8? My contracting office has been requested to issue a solicitation sole source to an 8(a) firm for a single award IDIQ services contract. I know that authority for sole source contracts is found at FAR 6.302-5(b )(4) and FAR Subpart 19.8. However, my reading is that for IDIQ contracts, FAR 16.504 still applies. Hence the multiple award preference described FAR 16.504( c) would still apply and as such, in order to pursue a single award IDIQ, the Contracting Officer would have to document the file with a determination that a single award is most appropriate, giving consideration to the content provided at FAR 16.504( c)(1)(ii). The requirements are not for manufacturing, will not exceed $4M total, and are not for advisory and assistance services. My inclination is to push for a competitive procurement, perhaps an 8(a) or other small business set-aside if the market research supports it.