52.217-8 on an IDIQ - Contract max/ceiling impact?

CSpecialist21 said:

What impact, if any, does the 6-month extension clause (FAR 52.217-8) have on the contract max quantity? ... Thoughts?

The clause says nothing about increasing the maximum quantity. In fact, the clause expressly states that exercise of the option extends the contract "within the limits... specified in the contract." Ask those who claim that the clause increases the maximum to show you the words that do so.

It would be different if the contract stated the maximum as a rate, say, a max of $10/month. But I've never seen that.

I agree.  However, the "within the limits" language is exactly what is being pointed to as support for the $1 increase.  The suggestion is the current limit ($10 max) and annual estimated amounts ($2) are BOTH shown in the contract.  Therefore using the same estimation, a 6-month extension adds $1 to the max.

It seems to me it's an end-run around a max increase.

Vern, in researching this issue on wifcon, I saw several of your responses regarding other IDIQ and -8 questions (in particular, if the -8 incorporated at the multi-award IDIQ-level flows down to task orders).  You indicated that you thought the -8 was not appropriate for IDIQs, but also that the -8 could be tailored.  I've never seen a tailored -8...do you have any examples?

Also, do you think it would be acceptable to tailor the -8 to make it clear that if utilized, the increase in ordering period (NTE 6 months) would trigger a proportional increase in the contract maximum?  It would seem to me that more clear language such as this (on a future IDIQ) would alleviate the confusion now faced on this $10 IDIQ.

CS, how does including language that says the "estimated" amount to be ordered each year cause any confusion?  The "limit" in the contract is $10.  Thus, if you exercise the -8 option, the option only permits you to place orders within the $10 limit.  The $2 "estimate" as you describe it is not a "limit".

CS, the only limit that I see in your example is the $10 maximum. The $2/year is only an estimate isn’t it?

CSpecialist21 said:

I believe the -8 simply extends the pricing of the given ordering period for a NTE total of 6 months, and has no impact on max/ceiling.

So how about this thought from a little different angle to support your belief.    Do you know of any contractual authority, other than what others might want to make up, to exceed the maximum (scope of contract) of an IDIQ contract?   Concluding that 52.217-8 does allow such a increase in scope since it became a stated contract clause of the FAR is a slippery slope that could very well lead to the risk of a protest on the basis of scope, period, or maximum value of the contract.

CSpecialist21 said:

I've never seen a tailored -8...do you have any examples?

Nope.

Why not write an option to increase the maximum if the government exercises the -8 option?

Why include the -8 clause in an IDIQ anyway?

If there's an actual requirement for work covered by the contract over the next 6 months, why not just issue a Task Order for it prior to the expiration of the IDIQ and then get on with the business of awarding another IDIQ. 

The -8 clause is specific to the extension of services. The IDIQ does not itself involve the initiation or performance of any services. All services are initiated and performed under Task Orders - that's where the -8 clause makes sense.