Sign In
  • Question

    I have two questions: 1.) Is there a need to establish a competitive range at the task order level of a multiple award IDIQ? 2.) Is it acceptable to change the SOW after an award decision has been made, but prior to actual contract award, and allow only one of the four offerors to submit a revised proposal based on the idea that the other offerors were sent unsuccessful offeror letters prior to the SOW revision?


    Answer


    1.) Is there a need to establish a competitive range at the task order level of a multiple award IDIQ?
    No. Competitive Range has been established because vendors are participants in the IDIQ

    2.) Is it acceptable to change the SOW after an award decision has been made, but prior to actual contract award, and allow only one of the four offerors to submit a revised proposal based on the idea that the other offerors were sent unsuccessful offeror letters prior to the SOW revision?

    AAP response: To begin DAU cannot give legal advice. Therefore the following response is not to be interpreted as legal advice or legal opinion. Now with regard with the SOW. Changing the SOW after the award decision and after “3 of the vendors were sent unsuccessful offeror letters” is inconsistent with FAR 15.206(a) Amending the Solicitation which states:
    (a) When, either before or after receipt of proposals, the Government changes its requirements or terms and conditions, the contracting officer shall amend the solicitation.
    Furthermore doing so deprives those three vendors of the fair opportunity to competed. In accordance with ‘FAR 16.505 – Ordering’ certain exceptions to fair opportunity exist:
    (2) Exceptions to the fair opportunity process.
    (i) The contracting officer shall give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery-order or task-order exceeding $3,500 unless one of the following statutory exceptions applies:
    (A) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.
    (B) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized.
    (C) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.
    (D) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.
    (E) For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.
    (F) In accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 644(r)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3). When setting aside orders for small business concerns, the specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in part 19 apply.

    Recommendation: Given our discussion none of the above exceptions exist. Therefore to remain consistent with the FAR, preclude an almost certain protest, and afford all responsible vendors the fair opportunity to compete for the award, it is recommended in accordance with FAR 15.206(a) that the solicitation be amended. 
     
     

    Open full Question Details