Jump to content

Handling IDIQ Extension – Is a Justification Needed?


Recommended Posts

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:

  1. 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) 

  2. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...