Extending the PoP for existing orders on an expiring IDIQ, due to COVID-19 utilizing the excusable delays clause

On 10/15/2020 at 10:47 AM, Jbert said:

Are these orders able to be executed past the overarching IDIQ's contract end date, or do I have to do a J&A to extend the IDIQ's contract end date so that the open task orders can be completed by the contractor?

From the information presented, it would be proper to extend the task orders. The “end date” for the “overarching IDIQ” is for making/awarding new orders, not for completing existing orders. Follow the advice of your peers and legal office.

I’m betting that they are saying the same thing. All you need to do is justify and document the basis of the time extension for the excusable delay.

The modification is apparently within the scope of the task order - which I assume was issued within the scope of the contract- the terms of which apply to the task order. Thus the “overarching ID/IQ” isn’t “expiring”, only the date for making new orders.

For instance, see this earlier thread: /threads/5733-idiqs-excusable-delays-and-the-changes-clause

Also check out the ordering clauses in the IDIQ contracts.  Generally most contain language about the period for placing orders and limit of the duration of orders extending past the contract ordering date.

Here is another thread, focusing on a question of issuing an out-of-scope mod to a TO after the base ID/IQ  contract ordering period has expired. 

/threads/5395-to-pop-extension-executed-after-base-expires

See the distinction between in-scope and out-of-scope TO mods?

formerfed said:

Also check out the ordering clauses in the IDIQ contracts.  Generally most contain language about the period for placing orders and limit of the duration of orders extending past the contract ordering date.

Good point. I do believe that it is Public Policy, as recently expressed by The Government and the various agencies to use every opportunity to flexibly provide for completing contract performance affected/impacted by COVID-19.

I would also add that one should read the limit of duration of orders past the contract ordering period to be in harmony with the other applicable ID/IQ clauses providing for in-scope modifications to time and/or price.

EDIT: As we know, the Fundamentals of Appropriations law provide for the availability (within statutory limits) of using funds past the period of availability for new obligations in order to to satisfy existing contract obligations... antecedent liability under the Bonafide Needs Rule. /legacy/reg/80025411632fccbc.html

In the same spirit, it would be logical to argue that a contractor should be allowed additional time to complete the existing contract requirements, if warranted by an excusable delay. The lawyers can verify that.

EDIT to the edit: Contract terms shouldn’t contradict each other to render performance Of existing requirements impossible under one clause in conflict with another clause, which provides for an extension of time necessary to complete the existing requirements,  due to excusable delays. That would not be in the Public Interest - ESPECIALLY now.

Quote

Joel and formerfed.  Thank you for the advice.  Both of your line of thinking was along the same as mine.

You are welcome. Good luck!