Treating a Task Order as the IDIQ ordering instrument

You'll first need to look at the ordering provision in your MAC IDIQ contract. There's usually language that covers when orders get placed and how long they can last. The contract probably contains prices such as labor rates applicable to certain periods of performance up to the end of the contract (including options). The ordering provision usually says how long orders can last past the contract period.

You also need to check to see that what you're contemplating isn't inconsistent with the MAC IDIQ contract langauge.

I agree with formerfed, but I want to add something. I know of no rule in FAR about the use of options with task orders. I do not believe that the rules in FAR Subpart 17.2 apply to task order options, although I could get an argument about that from any number of people. And I know of no reason why a task order cannot be issued that permits exercise of an option attached to the task order after completion of the work originally required. So, for instance, I can see issuing a task order with a completion date of 30 June that permits exerise of an option against the order after 31 December, assuming that the underlying contract is still in effect.

Having said the above, this comes across as nothing more than a scam to get around the rules for task order competition and the associated hassle. It smells like one of those practices that brings the acquisition profession into ill-repute, subjects agencies to criticism, and prompts the enactment of new laws and the promulgation of new rules. I'm sure that someone can make all sorts of arguments about why the practice makes sense, e.g.: the contractor is sole source and a new task order would be issued pursuant to FAR 16.505((2)(ii) or (iii). I don't buy it.As far as I'm concerned, new task, new task order. As a CO I would not go along with it except in the most extraordinary circumstances. I cannot think what those might be.

Since this is your first post, I suspect that you'll now come back with all sorts of additional information that you didn't tell us in your first post, information that casts new light on the problem, such as a possible rationale for doing it. Am I right?

I agree with formerfed, but I want to add something. I know of no rule in FAR about the use of options with task orders. I do not believe that the rules in FAR Subpart 17.2 apply to task order options, although I could get an argument about that from any number of people. And I know of no reason why a task order cannot be issued that permits exercise of an option attached to the task order after completion of the work originally required. So, for instance, I can see issuing a task order with a completion date of 30 June that permits exerise of an option against the order after 31 December, assuming that the underlying contract is still in effect.

Having said the above, this comes across as nothing more than a scam to get around the rules for task order competition and the associated hassle. It smells like one of those practices that brings the acquisition profession into ill-repute, subjects agencies to criticism, and prompts the enactment of new laws and the promulgation of new rules. I'm sure that someone can make all sorts of arguments about why the practice makes sense, e.g.: the contractor is sole source and a new task order would be issued pursuant to FAR 16.505(B )(2)(ii) or (iii). I don't buy it.As far as I'm concerned, new task, new task order. As a CO I would not go along with it except in the most extraordinary circumstances. I cannot think what those might be.

Since this is your first post, I suspect that you'll now come back with all sorts of additional information that you didn't tell us in your first post, information that casts new light on the problem, such as a possible rationale for doing it. Am I right?

I wish you were right -- but no. We have done task orders with Option Years in past; however, this is the first time they are asking for task options wherein the time of "exercising", availability of funds, and location of work to be performed (and to what extent) is not known until a customer calls them with a specific need. Other than the first 6 months of identified work, the timing of these "options" may occur within the next year or so. The argument presented is, "the FAR does not state you can't do it." However, my concern is that they are treating the Task Order as the ordering instrument and options as defined under FAR Part 17.2.

If they have not specified the work, then they cannot price it. In that case, use of the options will not conform to the task order competition requirements in FAR 16.505((1). They cannot even justify proceeding in accordance with FAR 16.505((2), since they cannot say what the work is. If you proceed with this you will be in violation of both statute and FAR, and will possibly breach the terms of the contract.

If they have not specified the work, then they cannot price it. In that case, use of the options will not conform to the task order competition requirements in FAR 16.505(B )(1). They cannot even justify proceeding in accordance with FAR 16.505(B )(2), since they cannot say what the work is. If you proceed with this you will be in violation of both statute and FAR, and will possibly breach the terms of the contract.

The "Task Options" are priced out on the front end of the task order as "Small" "Medium" and "Large" sites. Each of these is defined in general terms based on historical information (even though the specific location will dictate unknown conditions of the site). For the Task Order, they may state, "there may be up to 50 Task Options during the life of the task order (not sure if 1 or 2 years)." Prior to the "exercising" of each of these task options, a customer (or multiple customers in multiple locations) will call and say they need work to be performed at their site. The customer will state whether they believe the site is a Small, Medium or Large. The task option is exercised at the price the contractor provided at the front end of the task order based on the definition of a SM, Med and Lg. Once the contractor arrives to the site, they may determine the job is really a Medium instead of the Small that was priced. In this case, the KO would do a modification to the Task Order and price it at a Medium. The variable may be the condition, access and age of the infrastructure that services will be provided.

Well, you keep feeding out a little more information in response to each of my posts, which is more than a little aggravating. I'm not sure what the hell you are doing and I've lost all interest, so I'm done commenting. Maybe you should just do what they ask and let the chips fall where they may.

When am I gonna learn?

Well, you keep feeding out a little more information in response to each of my posts, which is more than a little aggravating. I'm not sure what the hell you are doing and I've lost all interest, so I'm done commenting. Maybe you should just do what they ask and let the chips fall where they may.

When am I gonna learn?

Perhaps your questions invite people like myself to provide some scenario information so that you can provide your valuable insight. This is all part of the learning process and the purpose of WIFCON. And we appreciate these by the way! My first paragraph is the only part of this scenario I know for certain. The remaining pieces are all based on a number of "what if" conversations with the customer. At this point, making reasonable judgements of the methods we acquire services is my primary focus. Needless to say, I want to know who has done something similar to the above, and what authority did they use to do it. Realizing transparency is important to the current administration, I don't want to be trying something that is not tried, true and ethical.

One does not need positive authority to do every little thing. There is no express rule against including an option in a task order that can be exercised after the initial work of the task order has been completed. If you're going to spend a career doing only what you can find express authority to do you aren't going to get much done. And transparency does not preclude trying the previously untried. Whether the use of such an option is otherwise consistent with regulations or appropriate is another issue, to be resolved on the basis of the facts of the case. I don't know whether anyone else has done it, but prior usage, in and of itself, would not make the technique either legal or appropriate in any particular case.

There are others here who have more patience than I about the dribbling out of facts. You'll probably hear from them.

I have had no experience in doing a procurement as your posts suggest but in reading through the thread I generally agree with formerfed and especially Vern's cautions. While the initiative to try new ideas is good what you are describing lacks sound business judgment which I believe is an important point that Vern has attempted discuss.

Managing/administration of Task Orders is a monumental effort in and of itself, administering upto 50 task options seems way beyond smart business especially by my read where I gather you are going to give the authority to the customer to "exercise" the options. Heck why don't you just give them a CO warrant!

As a additional thought what is being proposed not only needs to be viewed from the context of allowance under the parent IDIQ contract and FAR but also appropriation law and proper fiscal management.

I have had no experience in doing a procurement as your posts suggest but in reading through the thread I generally agree with formerfed and especially Vern's cautions. While the initiative to try new ideas is good what you are describing lacks sound business judgment which I believe is an important point that Vern has attempted discuss.

Managing/administration of Task Orders is a monumental effort in and of itself, administering upto 50 task options seems way beyond smart business especially by my read where I gather you are going to give the authority to the customer to "exercise" the options. Heck why don't you just give them a CO warrant!

As a additional thought what is being proposed not only needs to be viewed from the context of allowance under the parent IDIQ contract and FAR but also appropriation law and proper fiscal management.

Good morning and thank you for your comments. The scenario has changed slightly, albeit still within the same realm. The request is to treat the task order as an ordering instrument wherein they award a task order for let's say 12 months. The task order would consist of 50 subtasks which would be treated as though they were options. For consideration, the government would "exercise" one of the priced subtasks at time of award (contractor will have priced all 50 preaward (based on a general description and estimated number of Small, Medium, and Large sites). During the 12 months, they would "order" when the customer called with a location, job and funding. It is an IDIQ within an IDIQ at the task order level. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but would like to turn over as many rocks to understand how those who have done it work out the details (or not). It appears to have too many risks for both parties, and in my judgment -- does not meet the intent of the FAR for IDIQ/Ordering.

The "Task Options" are priced out on the front end of the task order as "Small" "Medium" and "Large" sites. Each of these is defined in general terms based on historical information (even though the specific location will dictate unknown conditions of the site). For the Task Order, they may state, "there may be up to 50 Task Options during the life of the task order (not sure if 1 or 2 years)." Prior to the "exercising" of each of these task options, a customer (or multiple customers in multiple locations) will call and say they need work to be performed at their site. The customer will state whether they believe the site is a Small, Medium or Large. The task option is exercised at the price the contractor provided at the front end of the task order based on the definition of a SM, Med and Lg. Once the contractor arrives to the site, they may determine the job is really a Medium instead of the Small that was priced. In this case, the KO would do a modification to the Task Order and price it at a Medium. The variable may be the condition, access and age of the infrastructure that services will be provided.

If this is what you are doing, why do you need options? I've seen similar work done with one task order. The task order is for providing site support - say configure, install, implement and train. Because sites vary, you have small, medium and large and each is priced separately. The task order is estimated at 50 sites and show the estimated breakdown. The task order includes language that a work order or authorization gets issued to the contractor to perform work at a specific site. The task order can be funded upfront of incrementally.

I have a quick question along the same lines of this topic...

Requirement: IDIQ Roofing with a capacity of $6M.

Contract Vehicle: MAC. The IDIQ requirement will be awarded though a task order under a MAC on let's say T.O. 15 and the new roofing work will be ordered against task order 15 for the life of the contract (1 year).

Situation: Task order 15 was solicited to 3 MAC contractors. Contractor C wins Task Order 15. Contractor C gets all of the roofing task orders for the term of the contract.

FAR 16.505 (B )(1)(i) states the contracting officer MUST provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered FOR EACH ORDER exceeding $3,000 issued under the multiple delivery-order contracts or multiple task-order contracts, ...

First off, I'm wondering why not just award as a single award IDIQ. Second is it okay to put a whole IDIQ contract under a single task order?

First off, I'm wondering why not just award as a single award IDIQ. Second is it okay to put a whole IDIQ contract under a single task order?

To answer your first question, it probably has to do with the fact that there is a statutory preference for making multiple awards under IDIQ contracts. At one time, Congress was dissatisfied with the lack of competition at the task/delivery order level, so they called for making multiple awards and competing task orders.

Now agencies are making the multiple awards to comply with the wishes of Congress, but essentially making the task orders single award IDIQs. I don't know that such a practice is legal (or illegal), but I expect it to catch on since Congress recently made it more difficult to enter into single award IDIQ contracts over $100,000,000. I give it a few years before Congress catches wind of this (if they haven't already), and requires competition for IDIQ task orders (i.e., task orders that are essentially single award IDIQs) under IDIQ contracts or somehow cracks down on the practice. We could also see a decision stating that the practice doesn't provide all awardees a fair opportunity.

It's actually kind of entertaining, if not sad, to watch how agencies always seem to find a way to evade Congress's dogged attempts to increase competition. It reminds me of the movie Catch Me If You Can.

Let's not forget FAR 16.504( c)(1)(ii)(, which says:

( The contracting officer must not use the multiple award approach if?

(1) Only one contractor is capable of providing performance at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized;

(2) Based on the contracting officer?s knowledge of the market, more favorable terms and conditions, including pricing, will be provided if a single award is made;

(3) The expected cost of administration of multiple contracts outweighs the expected benefits of making multiple awards;

(4) The projected task orders are so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably perform the work;

(5) The total estimated value of the contract is less than the simplified acquisition threshold; or

(6) Multiple awards would not be in the best interests of the Government.

Italics added. What is happening now is blind compliance with the multiple award preference, probably out of fear of criticism, but such compliance is contrary to FAR. The regulation says that COs "must not" make multiple awards if the administrative costs exceed the potential benefits. Multiple awards are costly to administer. FAR 16.5049 c)(1)(ii)( C) requires COs to document the reason for using either a multiple award or a single award contract. I wonder how many COs consider and discuss the administrative costs of multiple awards versus the prospective benefits of competition.

Justin Intern: MAC is the abbreviation for "multi-agency contract," not multiple award contract. See FAR 2.101. It's not clear to me how you used the abbreviation.

Now agencies are making the multiple awards to comply with the wishes of Congress, but essentially making the task orders single award IDIQs. I don't know that such a practice is legal (or illegal), but I expect it to catch on since Congress recently made it more difficult to enter into single award IDIQ contracts over $100,000,000.

I see a lot of that. One reason is people just don't make the task order competition simple. They fail to understand that it can be very easy and quick. Consequently they do things like making a task order award as you described to avoid having to do competition all over again.

In many cases, that's not bad. One big reason for competition is it helps ensure the government is getting a good deal. But if people do a good job with their negotiations on a single award IDIQ task order, the outcome is positive. One problem though is competition can be for things other than the best price such as competition for ideas and solutions. A single award eliminates that concept.

Justin Intern: MAC is the abbreviation for "multi-agency contract," not multiple award contract. See FAR 2.101. It's not clear to me how you used the abbreviation.

Vern, the Navy refers to multiple award ID/IQ contracts as "Multiple Award Contracts" ("MAC's or a "MAC" for short).

Vern, the Navy refers to multiple award ID/IQ contracts as "Multiple Award Contracts" ("MAC's or a "MAC" for short).

While Monsieur Edwards is correct as to the FAR definition of MAC, the acronym is commonly used in DOD to represent "Multiple Award Contract". Here is an extract from the DFARS:

"216.501-1 Definitions.

?Multiple award contract,? as used in this subpart, means--

(1) A multiple award task order contract entered into in accordance with FAR 16.504©; or

(2) Any other indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract that an agency enters into with two or more sources under the same solicitation."

Now agencies are making the multiple awards to comply with the wishes of Congress, but essentially making the task orders single award IDIQs. I don't know that such a practice is legal (or illegal), but I expect it to catch on since Congress recently made it more difficult to enter into single award IDIQ contracts over $100,000,000. I give it a few years before Congress catches wind of this (if they haven't already), and requires competition for IDIQ task orders (i.e., task orders that are essentially single award IDIQs) under IDIQ contracts or somehow cracks down on the practice. We could also see a decision stating that the practice doesn't provide all awardees a fair opportunity.

For FY 10, DOD has revised the way it develops its competition goals to consider competition for task orders issued under multiple award contracts. It has also modified its data collection mechanism to capture information on the degree of competition obtained when issuing a task order under a multiple award contract. If only one source is solicited, the action is non-competitive.

While Monsieur Edwards is correct as to the FAR definition of MAC, the acronym is commonly used in DOD to represent "Multiple Award Contract". Here is an extract from the DFARS:

"216.501-1 Definitions.

“Multiple award contract,” as used in this subpart, means--

(1) A multiple award task order contract entered into in accordance with FAR 16.504?; or

(2) Any other indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract that an agency enters into with two or more sources under the same solicitation."

Does DFARS assign the abbreviation MAC to multiple award contracts the way that FAR does for multi-agency contracts? The commonly accepted abbreviation for multiple award task order contracts is MATOC. For multiple award delivery order contracts it's MADOC.

For an idea of the level of justification required to satisfy GAO when choosing a single-award instead of a multiple-award IDIQ, see /legacy/a/c61f8762526b102e.pdf.

For an idea of the level of justification required to satisfy GAO when choosing a single-award instead of a multiple-award IDIQ, see /legacy/a/c61f8762526b102e.pdf.

All that case shows is that assertions unsupported by facts and analysis are not sufficient.

I should add that a contract for A-E, construction, and facility management services was a poor choice for single award by the Corps of Engineers.

I should add that a contract for A-E, construction, and facility management services was a poor choice for single award by the Corps of Engineers.

AMEN!

Now agencies are making the multiple awards to comply with the wishes of Congress, but essentially making the task orders single award IDIQs. I don't know that such a practice is legal (or illegal), but I expect it to catch on since Congress recently made it more difficult to enter into single award IDIQ contracts over $100,000,000. I give it a few years before Congress catches wind of this (if they haven't already), and requires competition for IDIQ task orders (i.e., task orders that are essentially single award IDIQs) under IDIQ contracts or somehow cracks down on the practice. We could also see a decision stating that the practice doesn't provide all awardees a fair opportunity.

Is anyone aware that Don was correct 2 years ago? Is anyone aware of any protests, decisions, etc with using a multiple award IDIQ contract and then issuing a single IDIQ task order? After researching the practice here and through other sources, I'm not convinced its the way to go on a current solicitation. If anyone has used this FAR 1.102-4(e) 'not prohibited and therefore deemed innovative' practice and has any words of wisdom or advice please respond.

I'm not aware of any such decisions. Let's give it another 2-3 years.

I am curious, how would one go about issuing a task order against an IDIQ task order. I will bet my automated contract system would choke on it.

From what I know of these creatures, technical direction letters (TDLs) are used to specify the work to be performed under the overarching IDIQ task order. In effect, the TDL is a task order under a task order under an IDIQ contract.

From what I know of these creatures, technical direction letters (TDLs) are used to specify the work to be performed under the overarching IDIQ task order. In effect, the TDL is a task order under a task order under an IDIQ contract.

DoN, the Navy uses them, called Technical Instructions (5252.242-9115 Technical Instructions). To use them off of an IDIQ Task Order, I presume the agency would cut a task order for x amount of hours, time, money, etc. and then issue a Technical Instruction under that task order that directs the contractor what to perform as long as it is within the general scope of the contract, 5252.242-9115(B ).

It sounds like what you two are describing is a modified way of doing this where they are issuing one task order for what appears to be a large amount of either money or time, and then just issuing TI after TI under it to direct the contractor and avoid fair opportunity for each of those taskings. In the case of using TIs, a multiple award IDIQ is not really the correct place to use it. That would be a very thin line you are walking with regards to fair opportunity since an IDIQ would be used for recurring defined requirements. I would think issuing a new task order would be the clean way to do it for each TI in the case of a multiple award IDIQ.

I know of one Navy contracting activity that uses the TIs as you described. The funding for each TI is added to the task order via modification. If not for the requirement for fair opportunity, the activity would not conduct business that way.

I know of one Navy contracting activity that uses the TIs as you described. The funding for each TI is added to the task order via modification. If not for the requirement for fair opportunity, the activity would not conduct business that way.

Yeah, I can't think of why you would want to use TIs on a multiple award IDIQ in the first place. You generally see them on development contracts where funding is added incrementally and the TIs are funded via SLINs.

Not on point at all other than the fact that as I continue to follow this thread my mind spun back to this discussion thread....

/legacy/reg/31e63eb8e2e8d33f.html

Is the acquisition workforce its own worst enemy?

Yes. The acquisition workforce is its own worst enemy. It does not follow the rules or it violates the spirit of the rules in order to make up for other failings, such as poor planning and process design and sheer stupidity -- i.e., incompetence. The result is it gets more rules and more restrictive policies. Consider this: In October 1995, FAR 16.505(, the rules for placing orders against multiple award contracts put in place to implement the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, was 565 words long. Today it is 2,201 words long as a result of Congressional action to cure what they perceived to be poor practices by contracting officers. Anybody who thinks he or she can improve acquisition by writing more rules, policy letters, and memoranda instead of first improving the quality of the workforce is a fool.

Improving the quality of the workforce is a huge problem, and no one is in charge and has enough power to do it. The government is too big and too complex to fix itself in this regard (and in many others). The workforce quality problem cannot be fixed, I repeat, cannot be fixed, except by individual practitioners who dedicate themselves to being the absolutely best they can be and set standards for themselves that are higher than their managers could ever imagine. I'm afraid that there are not enough such individuals.

Thanks to everyone who responded. As I'm replying here it's with total frustration over this acquistion because our IPT (of low level peon personnel) initially did not want to go with this approach but we were 'forced' to by the mid level management team. Now after a presentation to the Ivory Tower, the Ivory Tower is expressing the concerns we had over use of an IDIQ task order which were dismissed by the mid level approvers. Ack!

BTW - I've learned more reading the WIFCON forum in the past 6 months (since I stumbled upon it) than in all the 1102 training classes in the past 3 years.

Is anyone aware that Don was correct 2 years ago? Is anyone aware of any protests, decisions, etc with using a multiple award IDIQ contract and then issuing a single IDIQ task order? After researching the practice here and through other sources, I'm not convinced its the way to go on a current solicitation. If anyone has used this FAR 1.102-4(e) 'not prohibited and therefore deemed innovative' practice and has any words of wisdom or advice please respond.

It took 5+ years, but here you go: /legacy/a/0c6b3ba3791a6f12.pdf

Thanks for following up, Don. Very interesting case. GAO held that:

“In sum, while the agency has significant discretion to tailor the procedures that it will use in placing delivery orders, it does not have discretion to use instruments that do not satisfy the requirements of FAR § 16.505(a)(7). The FBI’s contemplated award of a 5-year second-tier IDIQ instrument to a single contractor is inconsistent with the requirements of the applicable statutes and FAR provisions regarding what constitutes a “delivery order.” Those requirements are, at a minimum, that the delivery order be defined as to quantity, place of delivery and schedule. In essence, the two orders contemplated under these RFPs will deprive all the other TacCom contractors of a fair opportunity to compete for each of the delivery orders that will be issued in the future, despite their aggregate value of approximately $335 million. We therefore sustain this aspect of Harris’s protest.”

Based upon GAO's broad interpretation, it would appear that an agency could run a risk of a protest if it attempted to issue a Delivery Order with FAR Clause 52.217-6, Option for Increased Quantity, if it did not either identify quantity, place of delivery, or schedule.

metteec,

I hope not. We issue task and delivery orders with options all the time -- but at least these order purchase something and they obligate dollars. I am supposing that in the case being discussed (Harris), the task or delivery orders did not purchase anything but merely included estimated qualtities, and actual quantities were bought by later "delivery orders".

ji,

Your supposition is correct.