10 Year IDIQ

Wrong question.

Right question: Does anything prohibit an agency from awarding a 10-year IDIQ for IT support services?

If the answer to that is "no", then you can do it. See FAR 1.102-4(e).

Bob please move this thread to the appropriate thread. ID/IQ’s or Contract Award, etc. thanks!

subbby,

I hope you will read the FAR text that Don pointed to.

Or you can look at GSA IT Group 70 Schedule contracts.  They run for 20 years - 5 year base with 3 5 year options.

What is the 10 years....ordering period or performance period?  Might make difference depending on agency.  By example see this thread....

Thanks everyone! I just move to a field office in Alaska, and taking over a few contracts. Four of the contracts are 10 year IDIQ structured with a one year base and nine 12 months options. That is my reason for asking the question above.

Why do you have to justify the already-awarded contracts?

ji20874 said:

Why do you have to justify the already-awarded contracts?

 I did not see where the OP was trying to justify something but "inquiring" as to why or how something was done.  Learning experience!!!!!

Oh, okay...

On 5/8/2020 at 10:45 PM, subbby2005 said:

...I am trying to figure out if an agency can award a ten year IDIQ for IT Support Services...

Not only it can, but it did!

subbby2005 said:

Four of the contracts are 10 year IDIQ structured with a one year base and nine 12 months options.

If the government determines that it no longer needs the supplies or services covered by the contract after a few years, I hope it does not leave the contractor hanging with the contract so that the contractor is still prepared to perform.

During my government career, an office I moved to had just awarded a 20 year CPAF contract.  It as for IT development.  A new CIO came along and directed the contract end.  We did a recompeition for multiple award IDIQ contracts to replace it.

ji20874 said:

Oh, okay...

Not only it can, but it did!

Ah @ji20874 I see so if an agency did it before then it is A-Okay pursuant to the regulations.  Application of a premise that is not always true.   

Again a learning experience to ask so that "Any information will be helpful."  I will not quibble about this any further as the OP I believe has received helpful information but my read is that he/she was not trying to "justify" something but trying to figure out how someone before him/her justified it.

C Culham said:

...so if an agency did it before then it is A-Okay pursuant to the regulations...

Really?  I wouldn't and didn't say or imply that. 

I hope the original poster now knows that no separate or special justification is required.