Is there a FAR reference for cancellation of a Task Order/Delivery Order?

Do you want to cancel a task order or cancel an "RFP" for a task order?

Why do you need a FAR reference to cancel a task order request for proposal??  Do you need an instruction to do that?

I noted that the title of this thread refers to a task order or delivery order, not a task order request.

@Retreadfed and @joel hoffman- Sorry, I meant "cancel an RFP for a new task order".  I had wondered if there was a FAR reference to include in the cancellation notice .I only see FAR 15.206(e), which is more for a solicitation, not RFP request for task order.

creyes814, Here is something for you to consider: the FAR does not require an RFP for a task order opportunity. 

Above the micro-purchase threshold, you simply have to "provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order."   No notice is required, and you "need not contact each of the multiple awardees under the contract before selecting an order awardee if the contracting officer has information available to ensure that each awardee is provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order."  See FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i) and (ii) for more information.

Above the SAT, you have to provide a "notice" and "[a]fford all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to submit an offer_ and have that _offer fairly considered."  See FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii) for more information.

Above $6 million, you similarly provide a "notice" that includes the factors and subfactors "that the agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals."  See FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) for more information.

By unnecessarily re-styling these notices as RFPs, I wonder if you are unnecessarily encumbering yourself with the procedural baggage that we think of as going along with RFPs?

ji20874 said:

By unnecessarily re-styling these notices as RFPs, I wonder if you are unnecessarily encumbering yourself with the procedural baggage that we think of as going along with RFPs?

creyes814 said:

not RFP request for task order.

With the limited details from the Original Poster (OP) I fear they have encumbered themselves to follow FAR part 15.   Proof would be seeing exactly how the parent IDIQ describes ordering procedure and how the specific request for offers under Fair Opportunity was fashioned.  

I did a little research and found this quote in a protest decision to be interesting (I added emphasis).  The decision can be found here /legacy/reg/6f91c03d66aa4a89.html and the protest relates to "SSI".

"The ordering provisions of SSI’s contract provide only that the firm be given a fair opportunity to compete, which includes that, upon receipt of proposals the contracting officer may open discussions or negotiate with all or some contractors providing proposals, issue a task order based upon the original proposal furnished, reject the proposal, or cancel the requirement."

All said it would seem that the OP should be looking closely at the parent contract and task order request for offers to decide the correct process for canceling the request for offers.

ji20874 said:

Above $6 million, you similarly provide a "notice" that includes the factors and subfactors "that the agency expects to consider in evaluating proposals."  See FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) for more information.

Are you saying we shouldn't call the "notice" an "RFP" to avoid FAR part 15 baggage? Or are you saying the notice need not request proposals above $6 million?

Don Mansfield said:

Are you saying . . . ? Or are you saying . . . ?

I asked the OP a question:  By unnecessarily re-styling these notices as RFPs, I wonder if you are unnecessarily encumbering yourself with the procedural baggage that we think of as going along with RFPs?

ji20874 said:

I asked the OP a question:  By unnecessarily re-styling these notices as RFPs, I wonder if you are unnecessarily encumbering yourself with the procedural baggage that we think of as going along with RFPs?

Yes, I know. I thought you maybe had a novel interpretation of FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iv) and I wanted to know what it was.

creyes814, I hope you will engage with an answer to my question -- it will be beneficial for your learning.  In the question, the pronoun "you" need not point to you personally, but could point to your organization since you might just be a cog in the wheel of your organization.  Let me re-word the question (editing shown in italics):

• By unnecessarily re-styling these notices as RFPs, I wonder if you or your organization are unnecessarily encumbering yourself with the procedural baggage that we think of as going along with RFPs?

And I'll add an additional question, based on your consideration of the above question:

• Are you or your organization willing to stop styling these notices as RFPs, and instead style them as notices and prepare them under the guidelines of FAR 16.505(b)(1)?

While the following cases involved FAR Subpart 8.4, I think they are useful when thinking about misapplications of FAR Part 15 under FAR Subpart 16.5. Primarily, because it’s common for people to express assertions that are contrary to GAO’s findings.

See IR Techs., B-414430 et al., June 6, 2017, 2017 “(finding that neither a solicitation's inclusion of some FAR part 15 procedures, nor a contracting officer's mischaracterization of whether a debriefing was a "required debriefing," could change the fact that the procurement was an FSS procurement to which the procedures of FAR subpart 8.4, rather than FAR part 15, applied); see also Systems Plus, Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 206, 209-10 (2005) (finding procurement to establish a BPA under the FSS program was not conducted on the basis of competitive proposals, even though it may involve the use of FAR part 15 enhanced procedures).”

In the wake of Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001, how many times have you heard that FAR Part 15 will apply if you involve FAR Part 15 procedures? What do people actually mean when they say that? Apply in what way(s)?

Whatever the answer, GAO doesn’t preclude acquisition teams from unnecessarily re-styling solicitations. And it is true, people can and do [sometimes unconsciously] over complicate ordering processes and procedures. In fact, many do.