Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/4469-use-of-52217-9-to-extend-idiq-ordering-period/&tab=comments
Timestamp: 2018-08-15 23:00:57
Document Index: 422244341

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17', 'art 17']

Use of 52.217-9 to extend IDIQ Ordering Period - For Beginners Only - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
By MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U, July 18 in For Beginners Only
My agency is issuing a 10 year IDIQ, and the 5 year ordering period limitation applies to my agency (nothing in regulation states this can be waived, otherwise we would have include a 10 year ordering period in the D&F for the 10 year PoP). We will like to modify the clause in 52.217-9 to extend the ordering period using the language below, and we have a few questions
1. Should this be moved to section H as an H-Clause? or does the phrase "substantially the same" at the beginning of the clause imply this kind of change is authorized per "52.104"
2. Would it be cleaner just to have a 5 year base and 5 year option?
3. When its time to exercise the option to extend the ordering period, does 17.207 (c ,d,&e) come into play at all?
4. Will the simple change below work or are we missing something?
Option to Extend the ORDERING PERIOD of the Contract (Mar 2000)
(a) The Government may extend the "ORDERING PERIOD" of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within _____ [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option]; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least ___ days [60 days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the ORDERING PERIOD expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.
(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended "ORDERING PERIOD" shall be considered to include this option clause.
(c) The total duration of this ORDERING PERIOD, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed ___________ (months)(years).
Well MAY-D received no response to questions posed and has not been back to reignite his/her post. Even in the apparent absence of interest I thought I would attempt a response. Hopefully in the view of others I am on the right track.....
On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 3:21 PM, MAY-D-FAR-B-WIT-U said:
The question implies that MAY-D is using the UCF suggesting that the intended contract will also include FAR 52.215-8. As the intent is to use 52.217-9 in a format that is "substantially the same" as is provided in the FAR it seems that having the clause in section I is appropriate as the clause still is a clause that should not have precedence over a special contract requirement (Section H).
Maybe not "cleaner" so to speak but doing so would be very beneficial to the need to comply with 17.207 which I believe would apply to evaluating the option to extending the ordering period AND the evaluation of the optional ordering period for the initial award of the IDIQ. In the end it could be done either as MAY-D is proposing (10 year contract, 5 year ordering period) or the 5 + 5.
Yes I believe it does. As FAR 17.2 addresses any option that is conceived under its general principles then 17.207 would apply.
Yes it will work. Again as expressed already the concerns with regard to missing something is the effort to evaluate the optional ordering period for initial contract award and the evaluation necessary to award the optional ordering period. I found this discussion thread in WIFCON that gives a little different twist to the idea that may be of benefit in thinking about the proposed approach of 10/5 + 5 that might be worth the read.
DFARS 217.204(e) limits the ordering period for an IDIQ contract to 5 years. But the FAR does not, and if MAD-D's agency is outside the reach of the DFARS, well, let's just say that the DFARS limitation will not apply.
Everything in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options that purchase supplies or services. Nothing in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options extending the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts.
In my mind, if the option exercise that is being considered is for the purchase of supplies or services, then FAR Subpart 17.2 applies. If the option exercise being considered is for the extension of the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts, then FAR Subpart 17.2 cannot be blindly or rigidly applied because FAR Subpart 17.2 was not written for options extending the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts.
@ji20874 Please prove the truth of those statements. I ask you to do this because FAR 17.200 provides as follows:
I don't see anything in that scope statement or anywhere else that says FAR Subpart 17.2 applies only to options for the purchase of supplies and services. Moreover, DFARS 217.204 states, in part:
(e)(i) Notwithstanding FAR 17.204(e), the ordering period of a task order or delivery order contract (including a contract for information technology) awarded by DoD pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a—(A) May be for any period up to 5 years; (B) May be subsequently extended for one or more successive periods in accordance with an option provided in the contract or a modification of the contract....
If FAR 17.2 does not apply to options to extend ordering periods, why does DFARS address that matter in 217.204?
I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that I don't understand how you reached the conclusion that FAR Subpart 17.4 does not apply to options to extend an ordering period. Moreover, doesn't an ordering period bear on the matter of purchasing supplies and services? Are you making a distinction between "applies to" and "written for"?
@ji20874 While I did not include in my post I did consult FAR 1.102-4(e) prior to considering how I would respond. I think it covers this situation along with the other thoughts provided by Vern with regard to the fact that the DFARS does address the ordering period.
Thinking about MAY-D's post your thoughts did give me pause to reconsider the questions and intended wording for the 52.217-9 clause. Based on your thoughts I came up with this..............
(a) This contract contains two specific Terms: 1) A Performance Term or period which is ten(10) years, and 2) an Order Placement Term or period which is five (5) years. The Government may extend the Order Placement Term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within _____ [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option]; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least ___ days [60 days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the Order Placement Term expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.
(b) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed ten (10) years.
@ji20874Are you making a distinction between "applies to" and "written for"?
Yes. FAR Subpart 17.2 was written long before the FAR envisioned task and delivery order contracts.
The DFARS supplementation proves nothing about the text of the FAR.
FAR Subpart 17.2 was written long before the FAR envisioned task and delivery order contracts.
So what you meant by your earlier remarks was that the original authors of FAR Subpart 17.2, which was written in the mid-1980s, were not thinking of options to extend the ordering period of task and delivery order contracts, because there were no such things when those rules were written. You did not mean that FAR Subpart 17.2 does not now apply to such options, but that COs must apply it thoughtfully.
However, I disagree that DFARS supplementation of the FAR proves nothing about the text of the FAR. The DFARS supplementation of FAR 17.204(e) explicitly interprets the text of the FAR for DOD personnel.
But wherever they put it, the FAR text's meaning is unchanged by an agency's supplementation.
Come on, ji. Why make such needlessly broad assertions?
A FAR text's "meaning" can be changed for an agency by that agency's supp. That's one of the reasons for issuing a supp, to deviate from the FAR.
On 8/3/2018 at 12:30 AM, Vern Edwards said:
A FAR text's "meaning" can be changed for an agency by the agency's supp. That's one of the reasons for issuing a supp, to deviate from the FAR.﻿
On 8/2/2018 at 9:19 AM, ji20874 said:
Everything﻿ ﻿in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for options that purchase supplies﻿ or ﻿services﻿. Nothing in FAR Subpart 17.2 is written for﻿ options extending﻿ the ﻿ordering﻿ period of task and delivery order contracts. ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿
On 8/2/2018 at 6:26 PM, ji20874 said:
But﻿ wherever﻿ they﻿ put it, the FAR text's meaning is unchanged by an agency's supplementation﻿﻿.﻿﻿