GreenKubo Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 I'm new to this program and trying to get my arms around a complex situation. I’ve been assigned a single-award IDIQ contract with a total ceiling of $999M. The contract was originally awarded on 6 October 2020 with a base year and four option years, but multiple stop work orders due to protests and litigation have shifted the performance periods. We are currently in Option Period 3, with the contract set to expire on 28 May 2025. The customer has requested three additional six-month options to allow more time for the follow-on award and transition. The follow-on contract is planned for award by 29 November 2025, with a nine-month transition-in period. Key questions: Do I need a justification to extend the contract if I am not increasing the contract ceiling? (based on our yearly spend, there is plenty of ceiling remaining) What is the best way to proceed with extending the contract length? Looking for insights from anyone who has dealt with a similar scenario or has knowledge of policy and case law that could guide me in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 IDIQ contracts have an ordering period, which is stated in the ordering clause, FAR 52.216-18, Ordering (AUG 2020). When you say that the contract will expire, I presume that you mean the end of the ordering period is approaching. The ordering period can be extended without a FAR Part 6 justification pursuant to a viable option clause. If you have no viable option clause, then, generally, any noncompetitive extension of the ordering period must be justified in accordance with FAR Part 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenKubo Posted January 31 Author Report Share Posted January 31 Thank you for the response. Yes, I was referring to the end of the ordering period when I mentioned the contract expiring. Based on the current timeline, there is not enough time left in the ordering periods to allow for the award and transition of the follow-on contract. You mentioned that the ordering period can be extended without a FAR Part 6 justification if a viable option clause exists. In this case, we do not have any remaining option periods to exercise. Given that, would a justification still be required even though I am not increasing the contract ceiling? Would a $0.00 justification be appropriate in this case, considering there is no need to increase the total contract ceiling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 15 hours ago, GreenKubo said: Given that, would a justification still be required even though I am not increasing the contract ceiling? Vern answered the question 15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: If you have no viable option clause, then, generally, any noncompetitive extension of the ordering period must be justified in accordance with FAR Part 6. But - it takes additional 18 months after May 29 2025 (3, 6 month extensions after the next four months of contract duration ????) to award and transition a (another sole source?) follow-on ID/IQ contract??? Was a nine month transition period originally included in the current contract? From what you said there is still a fourth, one year, un-awarded option available. Just seems, from the limited info provided to be a weird approach to add 3, six month extensions. But Vern answered your question. Doesn’t matter if the ceiling is not being increased. It would appear that follow-on industry opportunities are being delayed, thus the justification for the out of scope (sole source) extension… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 13 hours ago, GreenKubo said: In this case, we do not have any remaining option periods to exercise. I wonder about this statement? Reading between the lines of your original post it appears that the contract is for services. If so and by experience agencies typically place both FAR clause 52.217-8 and 52.217-9 regarding options in contracts such as the one in your case. Are they both in the contract or just one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenKubo Posted January 31 Author Report Share Posted January 31 On 1/31/2025 at 7:15 AM, joel hoffman said: Vern answered the question But - it takes additional 18 months after May 29 2025 (3, 6 month extensions after the next four months of contract duration ????) to award and transition a (another sole source?) follow-on ID/IQ contract??? Was a nine month transition period originally included in the current contract? From what you said there is still a fourth, one year, un-awarded option available. Just seems, from the limited info provided to be a weird approach to add 3, six month extensions. But Vern answered your question. Doesn’t matter if the ceiling is not being increased. It would appear that follow-on industry opportunities are being delayed, thus the justification for the (sole source) extension… You’re right to question the timeline. Historically, this requirement has faced multiple protests at both the GAO and COFC levels, and transitions between contractors have been challenging. That history is a major factor in why the customer believes an extended transition period is necessary. To clarify: The current contract did not originally include a nine-month transition period. That is being considered for the follow-on due to the complexity of onboarding a new contractor and mitigating disruptions. (Also, from what I see in the current Contract, there is very minimal instruction on transition out and what it entails, so this would have to be refined also.) Correct there is still a fourth, one year, un-awarded option available. I planned to leverage this 12-month timeframe to begin work on the extension and refining the transition out timeline. Given that, I understand now that a justification under FAR Part 6 would be necessary, even without an increase in ceiling, as Vern pointed out. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenKubo Posted January 31 Author Report Share Posted January 31 42 minutes ago, C Culham said: I wonder about this statement? Reading between the lines of your original post it appears that the contract is for services. If so and by experience agencies typically place both FAR clause 52.217-8 and 52.217-9 regarding options in contracts such as the one in your case. Are they both in the contract or just one? Correct, this contract is a single award, IDIQ for services. 52.217-9 is in the contract, however 52.217-8 is not in the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 39 minutes ago, GreenKubo said: 52.217-9 is in the contract, however 52.217-8 is not in the contract. Thank you....I think you are on the right track as you have noted in other responses in the discussion thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 Thanks, Joel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.