Assume we have a multiple award task order (IDIQ) program with ordering done under FAR 16.505 procedures. A "fair opportunity" competition is held for a "requirements" type task order that covers a 1-year term. The requirements type task order is awarded as a separate task order (assume it is TO #2). All future task orders (for example, #s 3, 10, 22, 33, 36, 37, etc.) under the program for any work covered by the requirements task order are immediately awarded, as a new task order, to the contractor who won the competition for the requirements task order without any further competition. However, the agency declares that these individual task orders that are directed to the winner of the requirements task order as competitive.

Do you believe a requirements type task order can be awarded under the FAR 16.505 ordering procedures on a multiple award task order contracting program?

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/16.htm#P362_62 814

ji20874  Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 08:02 am:

This was not the intention of the founders, so to speak -- the idea was that multiple contracts would be awarded, and then orders would be issued under the several contracts for specific supplies or services -- issing an order for a purpose other than ordering supplies or services, and instead only authorizing future orders, is something that I see as problematic.

But perhaps there is another solution -- do your "fair opportunity" competition as planned, and simply use this competition as the basis for more than one order. Make it clear to everyone that this is your intention. Nothing says that the "fair opportunity" competition must be done within 30 days or 60 days before issuance of the order.

formerfed  Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 09:00 am:

I agree with JI. As long as your initial competition included the scope of the entire work contemplated, that's fine. This essentially is what many agencies do under GSA Multiple Award Schedule contracts. They compete all the work under a broad scope and award a BPA for the resulting task order work to a single vendor.

buzzard  Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 09:32 am:

Here is the language from FAR 16.505 explaining what each task order should include.
------------------------------

(6) Orders placed under indefinite-delivery contracts must contain the following information:

(i) Date of order.

(ii) Contract number and order number.

(iii) For supplies and services, contract item number and description, quantity, and unit price or estimated cost or fee.

(iv) Delivery or performance schedule.

(v) Place of delivery or performance (including consignee).

(vi) Any packaging, packing, and shipping instructions.

(vii) Accounting and appropriation data.

(viii) Method of payment and payment office, if not specified in the contract (see 32.1110(e)).
------------------
For those believing that a requirements task order under a multiple award IDIQ is fine, how to you describe the requirements for these two items below.


"(iii) For supplies and services, contract item number and description, quantity, and unit price or estimated cost or fee.

(iv) Delivery or performance schedule."

If we do not know what items we will buy in the future, how can we state a delivery schedule?

Additionally, how do we describe the "quantity" for requirements that are unknown at the time of award?

Eric Ottinger  Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:45 pm

Since Part 16 is contract types, I have always read 16.501-2(c) -- “Indefinite-delivery contracts may provide for any appropriate cost of pricing arrangement under Part 16.”-- to mean that all Part 16 contract types are permitted.

However-- Indefinite orders under indefinite vehicles make my head hurt. If you do multiple indefinite orders under an indefinite vehicle, you will either have to fit all of the maximums under the maximum for the indefinite vehicle or put a clause in to cap the indefinite order at whatever point the indefinite vehicle maximum is reached. At that point you don’t have a proper requirements type order.

If you push the maximum for the overarching vehicle up to a point where it can cover numerous indefinite requirements type maximums, you really don’t have a clue what the actual scope is going to be when you do the competition, and that raises other problems.