The RFP that was sent to the contractor should have let them know the intent of the contract (or in this case, task order). Shouldn't we have identified the requirement at the time the RFP was sent and if that requirement changed, shouldn't we have issued an amendment to include the reservation of funds for that change, prior to even negotiating with the contractor. I don't agree that we should go into negotiations with the hidden agenda of having the contractor submit a proposal without giving them the Government's full intent.
I am unsure of the exact question from the information provided. However, I will respond from the perspective "should a requirement for seismic analysis, evaluation, and reporting with a potential for design services" be acquired as a single task order or separate task orders?
Open full Question Details
FAR 1.602-2 provides the contracting officer wide latitude to exercise business judgment that is in the best interest of the Government. There should be no issue involved in obtaining the seismic analysis report under one task order and allowing Government evaluation of the report. If the contractor providing the seismic report is the most qualified, then issue a second task order for the design effort.