Agency IDC

[Constitution]

We have a relatively new FFP indefinite delivery contract for non-commercial service.  This will sound unbelievable but I was just given a new requirement to issue for competition under this IDC.  So it is set up with a monthly price for the service and it has a POP of let's say Nov. to Nov.  I am planned for award in July.  So my supervisor explained to me that when I prepare to award this I will have a base period of let's say six months to start so relative to the prices I would use the monthly price from July to Nov. which is four months, then I would look at the pricing for Option 1 (which by the way isn't even exercised yet) and award two months to my base with that pricing which would cover Dec. and Jan. and to use those CLINS.

To me this sound ridiculous.  Why wouldn't I simply issue the award in July and use the price on the base for my entire six months?  Right? 

Apparently they have done this already on a couple of the first task orders.  

Any input here is most appreciated. Thank you.

 

 

[Don Mansfield]

43 minutes ago, Constitution said:

Why wouldn't I simply issue the award in July and use the price on the base for my entire six months?  Right?

This question is unanswerable without being able to read the contract. However, you are likely to receive answers.

[Constitution]

Thank you Don.  I will take a look at the contract, in particular, the ordering clause, however, I doubt there is going to be anything that addresses essentially what I see as blending of the FFP between the base period and unexercised option periods.  It seems like this is along the lines of blending a labor rate when offerors are trying to establish an hourly rate between less experienced and more experienced personnel in the same labor category.  I just thought it was a lot of work and confusing way to approach the pricing on the task order.  I would think the firms would have priced everything in the six months knowing they could get a task order in the fifth or sixth month that would last either six months, a year or possibly 18 months and would have priced with that in mind.

I will get back to everyone.  Thanks again.  

[Constitution]

I just reviewed the base contract.  So it is IDIQ because it has a couple variations on the time frame in Section B on the pricing schedule that can be selected essentially either six months or twelve months however this is not the issue at hand.

So as I suspected there is nothing in the ordering that instructs the CO to blend the price actually there is the complete opposite and it says in Section B that when a contractor submits a proposal in response to the RFQ the pricing identified in the contractor's IDIQ contract price schedule will serve as ceiling prices, therefore the prices of individual task order line items shall not exceed the corresponding contract line item ceiling in the contractor's IDIQ contract.

 

[formerfed]

As Don said, we would need to see the contract to answer.  Another question is how did the solicitation for award instruct offerors to submit their pricing.  However I can tell you the pricing process you described isn’t that unusual.  Some agencies do it the way you described giving offerors the option to submit lower than the contract ceiling rates.  That includes keeping the same rates throughout the task order period of performance.

[C Culham]

2 hours ago, Constitution said:

the ordering clause,

Actually take a look at the type of contract clause.   Maybe 52.216-22?   Excerpt - 

"(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after _______________ [insert date]."

As everyone reads remember without the option exercised the "period" is the base.

I am not saying it fully answers your question but the wording does suggest the work as bargained for inclusive of time it stipulated in the order.  I would agree with others the rest of the contract might provide other information that fits the CO's view, possibly how it addresses options.   Like you however I do find it confusing that for a FFP IDIQ that has no pricing for an option yet would stipulate that option pricing applies to an order when initially issued.   Afterall there is no guarantee that the government is going to exercise the option but issuing an order based on it exercise seems to me to be a defacto exercise of option.  Whether addressed in the contract or not it would seem that the agency has really confused the principles of option and IDIQ but what's new!!!!!!

[Constitution]

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

Actually take a look at the type of contract clause.   Maybe 52.216-22?   Excerpt - 

"(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after _______________ [insert date]."

As everyone reads remember without the option exercised the "period" is the base.

I am not saying it fully answers your question but the wording does suggest the work as bargained for inclusive of time it stipulated in the order.  I would agree with others the rest of the contract might provide other information that fits the CO's view, possibly how it addresses options.   Like you however I do find it confusing that for a FFP IDIQ that has no pricing for an option yet would stipulate that option pricing applies to an order when initially issued.   Afterall there is no guarantee that the government is going to exercise the option but issuing an order based on it exercise seems to me to be a defacto exercise of option.  Whether addressed in the contract or not it would seem that the agency has really confused the principles of option and IDIQ but what's new!!!!!!

To clarify Option 1 does have ceiling prices.  Option 1 however is not yet exercised.  Thank you for your input. 

[Constitution]

I have a new issue that came upon this RFQ this morning.  This is for a requirement where we have previously awarded the acquisition to a contractor via a small business set-aside.  The IDIQ has several companies on the award some large and some small.  The fair opportunity clause does have exceptions to the full and open competition, one of which is to set an RFQ aside for small businesses.  I just brought this to the attention of my superior and she said the only small business program we have to get permission for to exit is the 8(a).  I was always of the understanding any requirement that was set aside for small business has to stay in that program unless a case is made to go full and open.  She even said we don't need the agency OSDBU to approve this RFQ to go full and open.  Thoughts?  

[Retreadfed]

18 minutes ago, Constitution said:

The fair opportunity clause does have exceptions to the full and open competition,

What do you mean by this?  

[C Culham]

54 minutes ago, Constitution said:

I was always of the understanding any requirement that was set aside for small business has to stay in that program unless a case is made to go full and open.  She even said we don't need the agency OSDBU to approve this RFQ to go full and open.  Thoughts?  

Once again the the details of the IDIQ will count.  Generally speaking the decision is made on an order by order basis.  See FAR 19.502.  8(a) see FAR 19.806 and 19.810.

[Constitution]

42 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

What do you mean by this?  

There are a list of exceptions in the IDIQ for fair opportunity to solicit a quote from each of the IDIQ contract holders.  One of which is to set the RFQ aside as a small business set-aside.  

[Constitution]

12 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Once again the the details of the IDIQ will count.  Generally speaking the decision is made on an order by order basis.  See FAR 19.502.  8(a) see FAR 19.806 and 19.810.

The RFQ is well over SAT and I would expect to receive competition among the small businesses on the IDIQ.  FAR 8(a) isn't relevant for this.  The supervisor simply said that 8(a) is the only SBA program that requires an agency to ask to not commit to for follow on requirements. 

My concern is a pre-award protest, but I asked the question and got an answer in writing and I am not signing this TO.  So I will document the file and we will see how this plays out.  

Personally, I would have coordinated with the agency OSDBU, particularly if I am not doing a small business set-aside and/or I would set this aside for small businesses.  

 

[Vern Edwards]

New Wifcon members should have to pay a service fee. In addition, they should have to pass a test showing that they know how to set up and ask a coherent question.

All high school seniors planning to go to college should have to pass a course entitled, How To Ask Questions and Conduct An Inquiry.

All college freshmen should have to pass a test entitled, How To Know What You Don't Know.

[Constitution]

The government just lowered the standard for all 1102 removing the previous education and testing requirements for the Level I, II, and III.  I suspect this is because the government cannot recruit qualified candidates for the 1102 series and realizes that a crisis is upon us.  

[C Culham]

21 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

New Wifcon members

Yep

 

34 minutes ago, Constitution said:

The supervisor simply said that 8(a) is the only SBA program that requires an agency to ask to not commit to for follow on requirements. 

So did the supervisor quote you this? Relevant I understand but even when it is discussed in passing it should be discussed appropriately with reference.

"13 CFR 124.3 “Follow on requirement or contract” The determination of whether a particular requirement or contract is a follow-on includes consideration of whether the scope has changed significantly, requiring meaningful different types of work or different capabilities; whether the magnitude or value of the requirement has changed by at least 25 percent for equivalent periods of performance; and whether the end user of the requirement has changed. As a general guide, if the procurement satisfies at least one of these three conditions, it may be considered a new requirement. However, meeting any one of these conditions is not dispositive that a requirement is new. In particular, the 25 percent rule cannot be applied rigidly in all cases. Conversely, if the requirement satisfies none of these conditions, it is considered a follow-on procurement."

36 minutes ago, Constitution said:

My concern is a pre-award protest

So is "well over" the SAT more than $10 million if civilian or $25 million if DoD?   https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-419265.pdf  

 

Just now, Constitution said:

The government just lowered the standard for all 1102 removing the previous education and testing requirements for the Level I, II, and III.  I suspect this is because the government cannot recruit qualified candidates for the 1102 series and realizes that a crisis is upon us.  

Where in the GS-1102 standards does it refer to levels I, II, III?   

This thread lacks reference and references!

[joel hoffman]

11 hours ago, C Culham said:

Where in the GS-1102 standards does it refer to levels I, II, III?

This refers to the Defense Acquisition  Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) designations of Levels I, II and III in Contracting for acquisition.

[C Culham]

8 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

This refers to the Defense Acquisition  Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) designations of Levels I, II and III in Contracting for acquisition.

Joel - So help me. 

19 hours ago, Constitution said:

The government just lowered the standard for all 1102 removing the previous education and testing requirements for the Level I, II, and III

OPM nor DoD has not lowered the standard for 1102.   DAWIA certification like FAC-C certification are a different matter are they not?   One can be a DoD 1102 and not have either DAWIA or FAC-C certification can they not?

[joel hoffman]

26 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Joel - So help me. 

OPM nor DoD has not lowered the standard for 1102.   DAWIA certification like FAC-C certification are a different matter are they not?   One can be a DoD 1102 and not have either DAWIA or FAC-C certification can they not?

Agree that they are different matter for entering the 1102 career field. 

[Retreadfed]

On 4/24/2023 at 12:00 PM, Constitution said:

There are a list of exceptions in the IDIQ for fair opportunity to solicit a quote from each of the IDIQ contract holders. 

OK, so you and the contract recognize that the requirement that contracts are to be awarded using full and open competitive procedures does not apply to orders issued against an IDIQ contract.