Freyr Posted March 8, 2021 Report Share Posted March 8, 2021 Hi all, when awarding an IDIQ for a civilian agency should we be citing funds for the minimum guarantee on the base IDIQ or immediately be issuing a task order that has the funds? To be clear, I mean getting a purchase request that has a line of accounting then commit and record an obligation for the minimum guarantee (I saw a few threads where nomenclature seemed important on this topic). Seems our office does both with some COs vehemently opposed to putting money on the base IDIQ and others who don't care, just wondering if there's advantages/disadvantages to either method. The COs that are vehemently opposed to it say that since work isn't being performed under the IDIQ but rather the TOs, then money shouldn't be put on the IDIQ itself and only the TOs. The COs that don't care point to FPDS allowing us to show an obligation when we create the CAR for the IDIQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted March 8, 2021 Report Share Posted March 8, 2021 This has been asked many times. The answer is that policy and practice vary from agency to agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted March 8, 2021 Report Share Posted March 8, 2021 You don’t need to put the minimum on the ID/IQ if you are issuing a task order for at least that amount simultaneously. When our agency uses a seed task as part of the competition for a MATOC, they award the base contract(s) to all pool members and the seed task order is issued to one firm. The rest will have a guaranteed minimum obligated. Verns answer to a general question is correct though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts