Are IDIQs All They are Made Out to Be?

IDIQs are absolutely critical to the growing small business. Whether chasing a re-compete to existing work or growing your portfolio of contracts, IDIQs often provide that “access” that is just not available without them. Either as a Prime IDIQ contract holder or a subcontractor/teaming partner these are the way to success. The fish don’t jump in the boat, but these IDIQ tips will help you land them.

This is a guest post from our friends at Proposal Helper.

© iqoncept – depositphotos.com

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQs) are here to stay and are going to get more and more popular. For any company doing business with the United States Government, pursuing and winning a spot on an IDIQ is not an option, it’s an absolute necessity.  In fact, the government agencies are almost mandated to use Best In Class IDIQs for common procurements (OMB Memorandum M-19-13, issued March 20, 2019).

But are IDIQs all they are made out to be? Not all IDIQs are made alike. Knowing which one to pursue – and why – is an important consideration for any business. What are the pros and cons of IDIQs for your business?

Increases Access to Unique Opportunities

The contracting agencies (NITAAC, GSA, etc.) are marketing the IDIQs to their internal customers, which allows the IDIQ contractors to gain access to some very unique opportunities. It is also a great way for small businesses to learn about and pursue contracts that might otherwise be too competitive.

Limited and Known Competition

Perhaps the most attractive aspect of an IDIQ is limited and known competition. IDIQ winners are part of the “winner’s circle,” generally every company gets to know who they are competing with for task orders. The number of companies you are competing against is smaller than with other procurement opportunities, and they are all known to you. This significantly propels your capture efforts and allows you to fine-tune your strategy. You can plan your win themes and differentiators and establish your unique qualifiers ahead of time. 

Companies that invest time to learn their competition are able to not only speak to their differentiators but also align their company’s capabilities to push forward and reap the benefits of the IDIQ. However, lately, it may appear that everyone who submits a proposal is awarded, which erodes some of the IDIQ luster. This does not mean companies should not pursue IDIQs — it only means that you need to be selective in which IDIQs to bid and win.

Increase Market Valuation

With Category Management, IDIQs fall under different Tiers, and the value of the IDIQ to your company will vary. Understand the IDIQ Tiers (Tier 0 – Tier 3) before you make a bid decision. Some companies amass IDIQs to increase their market value before getting ready to exit (sell the company). 

If increasing market valuation is your primary goal for pursuing IDIQs, companies should profile their ‘ideal’ buyer and focus on pursuing IDIQs that will make their company attractive to that buyer demographic. It is not always BIC (Tier 3) IDIQs that fetch the most value. Your company’s capabilities will dictate which IDIQ makes the most sense.

Stretch the Finish Line – 8(a) Category

When it comes to socio-economic privileges, IDIQs that extend your socio-economic status beyond your original graduation date (currently only applies to companies in the 8(a) category) – may be important. For example, the GSA 8(a) STARS III was recently recompeted and any 8(a) company that wins a seat at this table will likely be able to extend their 8(a) status through the life of the contract. 

This is especially important if your current 8(a) contract clients would like to continue working with you—with an “extended” graduation date, you will be able to offer your clients a prolonged platform to continue working with your company. On this note, GSA publicized their latest efforts to create an IDIQ just for Woman-Owned Small Business and HUBZone Small Businesses via the announcement of the latest IDIQ – GSA POLARIS.

At the end of the day, IDIQs are what companies make of them. There’s no denying that they are very popular in the world of government contracting. Oftentimes, once companies have secured the IDIQs, most let them fall by the wayside, for one of two reasons: they went after the wrong types or they have too many of them and are too overwhelmed to keep up with task orders. 

Bidding on IDIQs can be expensive, but the return on investment (ROI) will come from bidding on actual task orders. For that to be successful, companies should be prepared and have the infrastructure in place to bid on task orders, recruit key personnel, estimate and price your services competitively, and—most importantly—be prepared to successfully deliver on the contracts.

How to Take Advantage of IDIQs

Since there are many benefits of IDIQs, it’s wise for your small business to make them a priority. If you don’t, you’ll miss out on a -billion-dollar industry of tasks and orders for the government.

So how do you get started? Before you decide to pursue an IDIQ, be sure to answer the following types of questions so you can set realistic expectations:

●      Why is the IDIQ important to your company?

●      How will your company respond to task orders?

●      How will you work with partners?

The answers to these questions should help you determine exactly why you’d like the IDIQ. Maybe your goal is to boost your company’s sales value or, perhaps, you’d like the peace of mind of having a guaranteed amount of work.

Be sure you understand the value of the IDIQ, whether or not it is used by your target audience, and the type of outcome you expect. If you’re interested in using IDIQs to your advantage, check out ProposalHelper’s IDIQ Reports and follow us on LinkedIn to learn about upcoming IDIQs every Friday.

This post was originally published on the Proposal Helper blog at https://www.proposalhelper.com/blogs/are-idiqs-all-they-are-made-out-to-be/ and was reprinted with permission.


Court of Federal Claims (COFC) Finds in Favor of the Small Business Community

Note from John: This is potentially huge news for the small business community. In recent years, the government has often put new or existing requirements directly onto a multiple-award large business IDIQ contract vehicle without doing an analysis to see if there are two viable small business entities capable of providing those services. This COFC finding mandates that the government do a Rule of Two analysis prior to moving the requirement onto the large business IDIQ. This will provide more opportunities for us…possibly many more. 

gavel
© AndreyPopov – depositphotos.com

This is a guest post by Nicole Pottroff of Koprince Law, LLC.

The United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) has ruled that an agency has to conduct a small business Rule of Two analysis before it can use an existing multiple-award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (MAIDIQ) contract vehicle to procure services.  This is a landmark decision, given that GSA Schedule contracts are exempt from the Rule of Two. 

The COFC’s decision in Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States, No. 20-1108C, 2020 WL 7022493 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2020), arose out of the Department of the Army’s decision to cancel two General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) support staffing solicitations, which were 100% set aside for service-disabled veteran owned small businesses (SDVOSB). The solicitations sought fire support specialists training services for the Fires Center of Excellence field artillery school at Fort Sill. The Army had previously procured these services through a long-term omnibus MAIDIQ contract.

The Army first awarded the solicitations to two SDVOSBs. But it subsequently cancelled the solicitations and the awards for the purpose of transferring the work to an existing MAIDIQ. According to the Army, this Training Management Support (TMS) MAIDIQ would “provide a potentially better procurement vehicle for this requirement” than the GSA FSS contract.

Two SDVOSBs brought this lawsuit under the Tucker Act, arguing that the Army’s actions violated two laws: (1) the Administrative Procedure Act (more on that issue in an upcoming blog); and (2) the Rule of Two (the subject of this blog). Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the Army violated the Rule of Two by “mov[ing] the unchanged requirements to the New Ft. Sill IDIQ, where only large businesses are eligible for award[.]”

The court explained:

The Rule of Two . . . is straightforward, and provides that the contracting officer shall set aside any acquisition over the simplified acquisition threshold for small business participation when there is a reasonable expectation that – (1) Offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns; and (2) Award will be made at fair market prices.

According to the court, the Army did not dispute that there were “at least two responsible business concerns capable of performing the work at fair market prices, or that, in general, the Rule of Two is mandatory.” The Army, instead, argued that the Small Business Act and the FAR gave it the discretion “to make use of a multi-award contract without first conducting a rule of two analysis to determine whether the task order should be set aside for small business.” The Army cited the following statutory language:

Federal agencies may, at their discretion:

(1) set aside part or parts of a multiple award contract for small business concerns . . . ;

(2) notwithstanding the fair opportunity requirements under section 2304c(b) of title 10 and section 4106(c) of title 41, set aside orders placed against multiple award contracts for small business concerns. . .; and

(3) reserve 1 or more contract awards for small business concerns under full and open multiple award procurements . . . .

The Army also cited the FAR clause for “[p]artial set-asides of multiple-award contracts[,]” which similarly says that “contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside a portion or portions of a multiple-award contract” under certain circumstances.

Based on these sources, the Army argued that, since it “exercised its discretion not to set-aside any portion of the TMS MAIDIQ scope or any of the TMS MAIDIQ‘s contract awards for small business,” it could now “utilize the TMS MAIDIQ for any acquisition – and avoid the Rule of Two – so long as the contemplated scope of work is within the TMS MAIDIQ’s scope.”

But the court rejected this “sweeping inference.” The FAR and Small Business Act provisions the Army cited, instead, tell the agency “how a multiple award contract may be structured or how a task order competition under a multiple award contract may be competed.” They do not address whether the agency may ignore the Rule of Two simply because the agency prefers to use a MAIDIQ that already has been awarded. As the court explained:

[T]he fact that an agency has the discretion to partially set-aside “a portion” of a multiple award contract for small business does not lead to the ineluctable conclusion that having decided not to engage in a partial set-aside, an agency may thereafter dispense with the Rule of Two. The latter does not follow from the former. To the contrary, the grant of discretion applies even where the Rule of Two does not require a set-aside, but the grant of discretion does not somehow, by negative implication, eliminate the Rule of Two requirement.

As such, the court concluded that “[t]he Rule of Two unambiguously applies to ‘any’ ‘acquisition,’ FAR 19.502-2, without any loophole for MAIDIQ task orders.” The court noted, “where the FAR intends to make the Rule of Two entirely inapplicable to the selection of a particular procurement vehicle, the FAR knows how to do so,” and it cited FAR subpart 8.4, which expressly exempts FAR Part 8 FSS procurements from the Rule of Two requirements. The indefinite delivery contract regulations in FAR subpart 16.5, however, do no such thing.

Because there was no legal exemption from the Rule of Two for MAIDIQs, the court turned to the specific question of “whether the agency has any obligation to apply the Rule of Two to a particular scope of work that is covered by the scope of an already-issued multiple-award contract[]” before it can leverage the existing MAIDIQ.

To this, the court answered “yes.” Interestingly enough, its decision was actually based on a GAO decision, LBM, Inc., B-290682, where GAO found that the “Army violated FAR § 19.502-2(b) when [it] did not consider continuing to acquire the Fort Polk motor pool services under a total small business set-aside[.]” GAO’s decision there–and therefore, the court’s decision here–centered around the definition of an “acquisition.” The FAR defines an acquisition as:

the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. Acquisition begins at the point when agency needs are established and includes the description of requirements to satisfy agency needs, solicitation and selection of sources, award of contracts, contract financing, contract performance, contract administration, and those technical and management functions directly related to the process of fulfilling agency needs by contract.

According to GAO, the purchasing of services with appropriated funds in LBM was an acquisition, “regardless of the fact that the agency anticipated acquiring those services through their transfer to the [IDIQ] scope of work.” GAO said, “[h]ad the agency complied with the requirements of [the Rule of Two], it might have concluded that the [IDIQ] contracts were not the appropriate vehicle for this acquisition.” Thus, GAO concluded that “the agency’s intent to use a task order under [a multiple award contract] as the contract vehicle did not eliminate the legal requirement that the agency undertake that analysis.”

The COFC followed suit, stating:

The bottom line from this Court’s perspective is that the cancelled solicitations at issue here are themselves acquisitions. The government’s identification of a need – of a scope of work – that it must procure itself begins an acquisition. Accordingly, we view the identification of the continued need for [the two solicitations’] requirements as either part of in-process acquisition or a new acquisition.

According to the court, either way the acquisition is viewed, the Rule of Two applies. The court said, even if the Army had “satisfied its small business set aside obligations with respect to the TMS MAIDIQ acquisition in 2018,” that did not mean that it also satisfied those obligations with respect to the acquisitions of the requirements set forth in the 2020 solicitations. The court said:

In sum, the government’s failure to apply the Rule of Two prior to deciding to cancel the solicitations at issue is fatal to that decision, whether because that failure undermines the central rationale of the cancellation decision or whether because the decision to move the work to the TMS MAIDIQ prior to conducting a Rule of Two analysis constitutes an independent violation of law.

In the end, the COFC enjoined the agency from cancelling the solicitations and transitioning the work to the MAIDIQ (or to any other procurement vehicle) without first complying with the Rule of Two.

This is truly a landmark decision by the COFC–with the potential to affect a multitude of federal contracts. Especially of late, we have seen many federal agencies attempt to shuffle new requirements to existing IDIQs, often to simplify their acquisition procedures or avoid certain rules or litigation. At least now, those agencies will not be able to escape the small business Rule of Two in doing so.

This post was originally published on the SmallGovCon blog at https://smallgovcon.com/u-s-court-of-federal-claims/cofc-says-agency-must-consider-rule-of-two-before-using-multiple-award-idiq-contract-vehicle/ and was reprinted with permission.


NDAA 2020 874 – Post-Award Explanations

© peshkova – depositphotos.com

Section 874 of NDAA 2020, Post-Award Explanations for Unsuccessful Offerors for Certain Contracts, “requires the FAR to be revised within 180 days to require that contracting officers provide a brief explanation of award, upon written request from an unsuccessful offeror, for task order or delivery order awards in an amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold and less than or equal to $5.5 million issued under an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contract. Currently, offerors are only entitled to a debriefing after award of an order exceeding $5.5 million.” – Megan Connor, PilieroMazza

So what does this mean for us? Here’s what makes this important. Last year in the FAR rules, a detailed debrief of your losing proposal had to be made only if total value of the award exceeded $5.5 million. 

If it was less than $5.5 million, under those old rules, you weren’t entitled to anything. They literally didn’t have to even give you the time of day. All they’d tell you is that  XXX company won, not you. No explanation of what you did wrong or right. Hopefully you have all taken advantage of this rule change on every source selection this past year. If not, I suggest you add the request for a debrief into your standard process when an award notification (win or loss) is made.  

The revised rule states anything above the simplified acquisition threshold from $250K to $5.5 million now may provide you a brief explanation of award. You do have to request this and you should ALWAYS ask for it immediately after you receive the notice. 

The result is usually just a paragraph or two. It might be something like, “the offeror’s proposal was judged acceptable but not more than acceptable,” or it could say, “we awarded it to the lowest bidder.”  

This rule means you will get more explanatory results from your IDIQ task order bids and useful information for that next proposal. I hope you have taken advantage of this.


Avoiding Flat Tires When Acquiring IDIQ Contract Vehicles

Businessman signing a contract

© makibestphoto – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Cy Alba of PilieroMazza PLLC.

With proposals costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and many IDIQs having 50 or more awardees, it can easily happen that some contractors who win a spot on a contract are unable to capitalize on it and simply stop trying to capture task orders. Whether it was because the initial win was based on sheer luck or perhaps because of a tragic, unforeseeable change in circumstances, making it impossible to bid or even keep the company doors open, a contractor may find itself with a shiny new license to hunt, but without the proper tools to successfully compete for and win the actual task orders.

After failing to win any work for usually a year or more, contractors in situations like this may just be looking to recoup the bid and proposal costs or salvage the win. Often, they look to sell their zombie contracts to a more viable candidate. In the past, this was not too difficult, but in recent years, even months, it has become a harder and harder “sell.”

First, it has always been true, yet not fully understood by many, that the sale of a federal contract is prohibited. However, this has always been more of a technical or legal truth than reality. Now, however, agencies have started to question more and more transactions during the novation process, especially in cases where IDIQ contracts without ongoing task orders are sold to other contractors. At some agencies, but particularly GSA, contracting officers are questioning whether a transaction truly includes “all assets needed to perform the contract,” as required by FAR Part 42, or whether transactions are an improper sale of a federal contract.

Many contractors come back with something along the lines of “this is a services contract, there are no assets, just people.” However there are two issues with that statement: (1) it inaccurately admits the improper sale of a federal contract and (2) it ignores the fact that many tangible and intangible assets exist, even when a “naked” IDIQ contract is transferred. Despite what some inside and outside of the government may believe, assets such as proposals, bid strategies, and marketing plans all have real value. Indeed, the proposals themselves for these contracts may have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare.

Given these facts and recent experience, we recommend that contractors carefully review all possible tangible and intangible assets that are part of a transaction, value each item, and then include them on at least the buyer’s post-transaction balance sheets, if not the seller’s pre-transaction balance sheets when possible, to show the agency the factual reality that there are valuable assets changing hands.

Lastly, we have also seen agencies use purchase terms against contractors. Particularly, terms whereby the seller retains workshare have been used as evidence that (1) the buyer is not capable of performing the work and that (2) not all assets needed to perform the work were transferred. While the existence of a workshare guarantee is evidence of neither, it has not stopped contracting officers from making such conclusions. Thus, given these new interpretations coming out of various agencies, we recommend carefully crafting such provisions going forward and giving full explanations in the novation package cover letter.

While the government enjoys a broad level of discretion when reviewing novations so they are never guaranteed, focusing on these and similar issues can help resolve the government’s concerns as to improper sales of federal contracts. In the past year or so, we have seen a major paradigm shift amongst a number of federal agencies. Thus, if you are buying or selling “naked” IDIQ vehicles, be prepared for a fight on the novation front, regardless of how well crafted the purchase agreement—some agencies will use the smallest excuse to reject a novation as not being in the best interests of the government when, by any reasonable account, it absolutely is.

This post originally appeared on the PilieroMazza blog at https://www.pilieromazza.com/avoiding-flat-tires-when-acquiring-idiq-contract-vehicles and was reprinted with permission.


Multiple-Award IDIQ – How to Pick and Choose Targets That You Didn’t Bring to the Table

© noraneko – Fotolia.com

We’ve been discussing multiple-award IDIQ contracts and what to do once you’ve won one. The most important thing to remember is that there is no guarantee you’ll be awarded the work.

In some cases, you can give yourself an advantage by bringing your own customer or prospective customer to the table and setting yourself up to win. But what if you didn’t bring the customer? Is it still worth trying? It depends.

When it comes to multiple-award IDIQ contracts, the more detailed the proposal evaluation criteria and proposal instructions, the better – but only when you’ve worked with the customer to correspond those details to your company’s specific past performance. Otherwise, you could be putting yourself in competition with someone who did. Here are two specific clues that that’s the case:

  1. Key resumes – the more key resumes that there are, and the more detailed the resume requirements, the faster you should run away. If they’re specifying 10 or more key people and they have extensive requirements for what those key people need to have, you’re never going to win. Even if you were to find matching people, they’re not THE people that the customer wants. They wrote the requirements that way because they want a specific set of people.
  2. Past performance – similarly, if the proposal criteria include a whole host of technical systems and functions that you’re supposed to have done, it means the customer already has somebody in mind who has all those requirements.

So if you’re deciding whether or not to bid on a proposal for a customer you didn’t bring to the table, measure carefully against these two factors before making your choice.

Something else you might want to avoid when you’re considering potential multiple-award IDIQ proposals are LPTA (“lowest-price technically acceptable”) jobs. Most people who are successful at bidding on LPTA jobs have very, very low indirect rates. It is highly unlikely that you’re going to beat them at their game and still manage to keep your good people and your reputation with those people; and run your business successfully the way you want to run it; with the culture that you want to foster in your business.

At TAPE, we rarely if ever bid on LPTA jobs. The expectation is that you’re going to deliver the same qualified staff at a dramatically lower rate and we just don’t think we can do it, nor do we want do. It’s not the kind of culture we want to run.

So unless you brought the customer to the table and you’re fairly sure you’re the only one who can win, be very careful before choosing to bid on a multiple-award IDIQ task order.


Multiple-Award IDIQ Contracts – How to Make Sure You’re the Only One Who Can Win

© kraphix – Fotolia.com

Even when you win a multiple-award IDIQ contract, there is no actual guaranteed work. You still need to find customers who will award the work to you.

There are two situations where it’s easier to make sure you’re the only one who can win. The first is if there is a customer you’ve previously worked with, and the second is if you’ve done all the upfront work with a new customer who is ready and wants to buy from you.

In either case, when you are bringing a customer to the table in a multiple-award IDIQ you want to make it easy for them to choose you over the other companies in the mix, by advising them as they create their proposal instructions and proposal evaluation criteria.

The more detailed their criteria – and that those details are based on your actual experience – the more likely you will be able to eliminate the companies who don’t have the same exact requirements you have specified.

Aim to have the customer include these details:

  • The key people who will be involved in the work, along with their specific technical skills and the functions they perform
  • A requirement that these key people are current employees of the company
  • A performance work statement (PWS) and statement of work (SOW) that correspond closely to your company’s actual past performance

If you are successful in guiding the prospective customer to base their proposal evaluation criteria on these details, your own proposal will send a strong message that you are ready for this contract.

Will you have an unfair advantage? Certainly! The point is, if you’re going to try to make it so nobody else can win, you’d better be sure no one else can win. This is not about being fair; if you want to be fair, then you’re not going to do any of these things and you’re going to have more competition.


Multiple-Award IDIQs: How to Bring Your Customers to the Vehicle

© REDPIXEL – Fotolia.com

In previous posts we talked a little about first what is a multiple-award IDIQ, then about what happens after you’ve won one. Today we’re talking about choosing target customers and bringing them to this contracting vehicle.

This really goes back to our discussions of knowing your customer base instead of chasing the wrong customers. So if you’ve already been making contacts in the government contracting community, and you know that there’s a target customer that you’d like to work with, a multiple-award IDIQ is particularly valuable because it gives you an opportunity to connect.

Now you can approach the customer to talk not just about their business, but about the opportunity they may have to use this particular vehicle and why that would be valuable to them.

You need to prepare for that conversation in two ways: you must be able to clearly state what your value is and what the vehicle value is to your government customer. This value may be the ease of contracting and, though this may be counterintuitive, the breadth of potential contract bids.

Why do you want to play up the fact that there will be multiple bids besides yours? Because even though you want to minimize competition and be the one to win, your customer wants to ensure that they’ve checked the boxes that there are enough contractors bidding on the job.

Otherwise, they’ll have to write up sole source justifications and all those kinds of things. They don’t mind evaluating proposals, but they don’t want this extra work, and this vehicle being an already-awarded contract helps them avoid that.

So your job here is to prepare your customer to see the benefits of this multiple-award vehicle, and to be clear that you are offering them exactly what they need. And in our next discussion, we’ll talk about how to make sure that you’re the only one who can win.


So You Won a Multiple-Award IDIQ, Now What Do You Do?

© elnariz – Fotolia.com

Winning a multiple-award IDIQ contract does not give you any new work; in fact it causes work, because you’re going to have to go figure out who can use this contract from amongst your customers, and help show them why moving things over to this contract you’ve won is the right step for them (because it’s also the way for you to get more work!).

Look at it this way: If we have a contract with a customer, and that contract is going to be eligible for renewal, would we rather have it competed in its current open scenario, let’s say through FedBizOpps, or would we prefer it to be a more limited competition under one of these multiple award IDIQ vehicles?

Assuming for the moment that we think it’s to our advantage as a small business, we now need to convince the government program office and contracting office that this new vehicle is easier to use and meets their needs better.

In the case of the GSA vehicles, GSA also wants to help you do that. This is not specifically about any particular piece of business, but that the more you actually bring over business or bring over an old customer doing a new function to this new vehicle where they can get to you, the more likely you are to win that work.

You’re trying to convince your existing customer that some piece of work should be put on this vehicle because you can respond to it as a prime. It doesn’t mean you’re going to win over your competitors within the contract, but it does mean that you’re at least going to be in the game as long as you have the capacity to respond.

Multiple-award IDIQs are a tempting source of revenue for small business federal contractors, particularly because the numbers are usually very big. Our VETS 2 contract, for example, has a ceiling of $2 billion! But only if you’re prepared, first to be able to write the proposals, and second to bring in the work where you have the knowledge, background or information. Otherwise it’s going to be like shooting in the dark.

Stay tuned for a later post when we’ll talk about how to pick and choose targets that you didn’t bring to the table.


What is a Multiple-Award IDIQ Contract?

© natara – Fotolia.com

Many federal contracts are issued as IDIQ – indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity. What an IDIQ means is that although the government may award you a contract with a ceiling value of let’s say $25 million, nothing is guaranteed. It’s all issued in the form of task orders.

That’s what makes this an indefinite quantity, because although there’s a ceiling, there is no actual guaranteed contract. In contrast, you may have an annual contract for $25 million, but it’s what’s called a level-of-effort (LOE) contract. Every year for five years you get an option or agreement for $5 million, one-fifth of your 25 million. That is a definite quantity.

The indefinite delivery refers to the fact that the task orders can be for differing durations – you could get a task order for one month, six months, or longer. They’re not for a specified time frame. Your LOE contract, on the other hand, has a set delivery schedule of one year, repeated four times.

The next distinction we have to make is between single award and multiple award. Obviously if you win a single-award contract you’re the only awardee. Everything that’s done under that contract is done by you. You may have sub-contractors, but in essence you’re the prime; all the revenue comes through you.

In a multiple-award, not only are the projects issued as task orders, but you have competitors who may also be able to bid on and win those items. For example, with the GSA’s IT Schedule 70, you don’t have to compete to get your contract, but every task order is competed. So you don’t actually get any work or any revenue unless you win a task order under the contract.

While a lot of this is changing (we won’t go into that here) the reality is that almost every agency uses some form of multiple-award IDIQ to focus portions of their effort. It may be something central to their mission, or it may be a service that contributes to the mission, like information technology or something of that nature.

There are several GSA multiple-award IDIQs in the information technology and engineering areas, such as Alliant, the Veterans Technology Services 2 (VETS 2) program, which is limited to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses), STARS, which is limited to companies designated 8(a) or small disadvantaged businesses, and OASIS, that’s limited to engineering and related companies in various size standards.

Most of thee contracts will have a small business set-aside component, as well as an unrestricted or large business component. Think a multiple-award IDIQ is for you? Stay tuned for the next post, where we’ll discuss what to do once you’ve actually won one.


The Consolidated Professional Services Schedule for Federal Contractors

Business young people in the job interview, signed an employment contract with boss in the office

© yurolaitsalbert – Fotolia.com

Back on October 1, 2015, GSA launched its new Professional Services Schedule (PSS), which consolidates eight professional services contract schedules into one.

The eight schedules are:

#520 – Financial and Business Solutions (FABS)
#541 – Advertising and Integrated Marketing Services (AIMS)
#738II – Language Services
#871 – Professional Engineering Services (PES)
#874 – Mission Oriented Business Integrated Services (MOBIS)
#874V – Logistics Worldwide (LOGWORLD)
#899 – Environmental Services
#00CORP – Consolidated Services

This is important for everybody to understand because it means that the old MOBIS schedule that many of us had, the one that handles program management services, is now a part of this new schedule and has a lot more scope than before.

This creates a new opportunity for people who have a MOBIS schedule or one of these other schedules to now add all these different functions to their schedule and bid on more work.

In particular, there may be things that you didn’t feel like you were quite qualified for, but now all you have to do is add another SIN code (this is not any kind of moral judgment; it stands for Special Item Number) to your profile. GSA has detailed instructions for how to modify your information.

It’s very important to understand and follow GSA’s rules for how you stay on a schedule, because the whole reason for this change is that GSA is trying to reduce the number of vendors and the number of contracting staff they need, in order to hold their costs down.

As Tiffany Hixson writes on the GSA blog, “By reducing the number of contracts supporting the Professional Services category of spend, GSA will eliminate more than 700 contracts resulting in an estimated five year savings of $3.95 million, and sustained savings of $1.29 million annually thereafter.”

MOBIS was a big deal before, but this new combination of MOBIS with professional engineering and the other schedules makes it a really big deal. So as readers, you should really be up to date on what these schedules look like, what your obligations are to stay on GSA’s good list, and most importantly how to make use of this increased opportunity.


css.php