A delivery order is an order issued to a supplier to deliver goods under an existing indefinite-delivery contract; services are primarily ordered via task orders. Generally delivery orders and task orders are unilateral actions issued by the contracting officer, ordering official, or through alternative ordering methods. During the contract term, delivery or task orders are issued by the contracting officer; or, orders may be placed through alternative methods using the defined procedures as described in the contract. The period for placing orders and the designated ordering officials will be defined in the indefinite-delivery contract. Orders may be made against a single award indefinite-delivery contract or against multiple-award indefinite-delivery contracts (see Section 4-1.4.2, Ordering). Whether to award a single or multiple indefinite-delivery contract; and, under multiple awards, whether orders will be issued with or without further competition, should be addressed during purchase planning and described within the contract. See Section 2-18.8.4, Award of a Single Indefinite-Delivery Contract or Multiple Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, for more information, including a discussion of the circumstances under which the award of a single or multiple indefinite-delivery contract(s) may provide the best business solution. Ordering limitations are delineated in the contract (see Clause 2-40 Delivery-Order Limitations).
Contracting officers may place delivery or task orders against an indefinite-delivery contract (see Section 4-1.3, Contract Vehicles for Ordering). Orders must be within the scope of the contract and only issued within the period of performance of the indefinite-delivery contract. Deliveries of goods or performance of services will be provided in accordance with the period specified in the order. An order’s completion date, including any modifications, may exceed the indefinite-delivery contract’s period of performance. However, in issuing an order whose delivery requirements will extend beyond the contract’s period of performance, the contracting officer or ordering official should consider the planned term of such order in relation to the indefinite-delivery contract’s full period of performance and only issue the order if the completion date is within a reasonable period beyond the underlying contract’s period of performance. Consideration may be given to the time it would take for delivery, or to award a replacement contract if there is a continuing need for the goods or services.
Orders may also be placed through alternative methods, such as, designated ordering officials, online catalogs, and automated methods. Such alternative methods should have well-defined procedures stated in the contract. The ordering procedures must be defined through the use of specific ordering instructions in the contract. For orders issued through online catalogs or automated methods, such instructions are commonly communicated through Material Logistics Bulletins that describe who can place orders, how to place an order, any limitations on orders, and time periods within which orders may be placed, but it is not limited to this type of communication. In these automated situations, further competition of orders or additional price discussions are not anticipated or required. An example of this type of order placement may be applicable when the unit prices for goods or services are clearly defined in the contract but the precise order quantities, delivery dates, or locations are not known at time of contract award.
Orders may be issued in writing, by written telecommunication, electronic data interchange (EDI), online catalogs, other methods as defined in the contract, or orally. Oral orders, other than authorized Postal Service credit card orders, must be confirmed in writing. These or any other methods used to place orders must be specified in the contract.
Orders for goods or services issued by contracting officers under a single-award indefinite-delivery contract do not require further competition. When alternative methods are used to place orders, the defined procedures established in the contract are to be followed. The orders carry the competitive or noncompetitive classification type of the original contract unless otherwise re-classified within the contract authoring system(s) by the contacting officer.
When a contracting officer issues a fixed-priced order for goods or services under a single award indefinite-delivery contract that is based upon quantities applied to fixed unit prices as specified in the contract, the contracting officer must document the action within an OPM, and the order does not require any further reviews and approvals. For all such orders valued at $20 million or more, the contracting officer will provide advanced notification to the VP, SM. The notification should include any pertinent information about the indefinite-delivery contract and the order being placed (e.g., contract and order number, supplier information, period of performance, status of obligations against contract maximum, order dollar amount, and contract and order description).
When a contracting officer issues an order for goods or services under a single award indefinite-delivery contract that is not based upon quantities applied to fixed unit prices as specified in the contract, where there are variations in price or contract terms, or for a task order for services that was not fully defined and priced at the time of award, the contracting officer must document the action within an OPM and retain this documentation and any corresponding reviews and approvals in the contract file. Examples of an order not based upon quantities applied to fixed unit prices include the following:
Examples of variations in price or contract terms include the following:
The OPM must be sufficiently detailed to document order issuance and include, as applicable, any technical evaluation of the supplier’s approach, document the price or cost analysis, detail the negotiations results, document that the order is within the contract’s maximum, and determine that the order price is fair and reasonable if fixed price, or that the price represents a reasonable estimate if to be issued on a time and materials, labor-hour or cost-type basis.
An order issued by a contracting officer of $1 million or more that is based on a pricing methodology other than quantities applied to fixed unit prices in the contract requires standard reviews and approvals as described in Section 2-41.3.2, Reviews and Approvals of Contract Awards, Modifications, and Ordering Agreements. These same type of orders valued at less than $1 million require no further reviews and approvals. For delivery and task orders that do not require further reviews and approvals, contracting officers must have sufficient delegated authority to execute the orders. (See 2-41.3.4.1, Reviews and Approvals of Orders – Single Awards.)
If multiple awards of indefinite-delivery contracts are made, further competition of orders should be considered by the purchase/SCM team. In many instances, further competition may represent the best business decision, however, market conditions or specific circumstances may dictate that placement of orders without further competition is most advantageous to the Postal Service. The decision to compete an order or not is the responsibility of the contracting officer. The contracting officer may choose to place an order against one or compete the requirement among some or all of the multiple-award indefinite-delivery contract holders. The decision and its rationale to provide for further competition or not must be documented in the contract file. For more information, see Sections 2-18.8.5, Determining Whether to Compete Orders – Multiple Awards and 4-1.4.4.2, Decision for Order Placement – Multiple Awards.
When alternative methods are used to place orders, the defined procedures established in the contract are to be followed and the orders do not require further competition. (See Section 2-18.8.4, Award of a Single Indefinite-Delivery Contract or Multiple Indefinite-Delivery Contracts)
The terms for further competition of orders, if applicable, under multiple-award indefinite-delivery contracts are provided through Clause 2-39: Ordering. This clause includes the right of the Postal Service to further compete orders for goods or services. Based on individual requirements, the contracting officer may include additional contract-specific terms regarding the further competition of orders necessary to meet individual program needs. See Section 2-18.8.5, Determining Whether to Compete Orders – Multiple Awards.
For fixed-price indefinite-delivery contracts for goods or services, the contracting officer should have available pricing and other information that can be used to make item and price comparisons among all awardees. Past performance of awardees under previous orders may be used for the purposes of evaluation for order placement. If further competition is contemplated and sufficient information is available on all awardees, the contracting officer may determine the pool of multiple awardees that would provide sufficient additional competition. However, if for example: (1) the items proposed by awardees are dissimilar and it is not possible to make direct comparisons, or (2) it is not possible to derive a total order price based on contract pricing, or (3) it is necessary to assess the availability of price reductions or to determine whether more favorable delivery terms can be offered, then discussions should be held with all awardees, or a subset of the most highly qualified awardees, to determine the applicability and extent of further competition.
Under certain circumstances it may be in the best interest of the Postal Service to exclude particular awardees from consideration for a particular order. Examples of such circumstances are the following:
These examples are not intended to be all inclusive; there may be other circumstances which, in the judgment of the contracting officer, provide a sufficient basis for excluding an awardee from consideration for a particular order.
For planned orders of $1 million or more where the contract provides the opportunity for further competition of orders among the contract holders and the client prepares and submits rationale documenting the CBJ to exclude all but one multiple awardee from consideration for a particular order, the contracting officer must review the rationale and make a COD regarding the matter. A PCES manager from the requesting organization must provide written concurrence with the CBJ prior to submission to the contracting officer. (See Section 2-41.3.4.3, Reviews and Approvals for the Determination for Placement of an Order to a Single Supplier – Multiple Awards.) If there is a client concern or need for additional review of the client’s request to exclude a contract holder for consideration of order placement, the contracting officer will escalate the discussion within the joint management chain, at each level, through to the VP, SM, if required. The client’s rationale and COD supporting the decision to place the order with a single supplier must be included in the contract file.
The CBJ, at a minimum, should contain the background and purpose of the requirement, basis for issuing an order to a single supplier, and estimated cost and period of performance. The contracting officer will make his or her determination within the COD document. A CBJ is not required from the client for orders less than $1 million.
Subsequent to the award of multiple indefinite-delivery contracts for goods or services, orders may be issued by the contracting officer with further competition, issued by the contracting officer without further competition, and may be placed by designated ordering officials or through automated processes when defined procedures are established in the contract. An OPM to the contract file is required for each order issued from a multiple-award indefinite-delivery contract.
When placing delivery orders for goods or task orders for fixed-price goods or services, the contracting officer should have available pricing that can be used to make product and price comparisons. In these circumstances, it is generally not necessary to request additional information from awardees or establish a technical evaluation team for order placement determination. Sufficient documentation is usually available to the contracting officer in the form of pricing schedules, delivery schedules, warranty details if applicable, and past performance information, to permit the comparative analysis necessary for determination of the delivery order awardee(s). However, it may be necessary and in the business interest of the Postal Service, under certain circumstances, to contact an awardee or awardees to obtain additional information prior to selection.
In the case of requirements involving services to be ordered under indefinite-delivery contracts that were not fully defined and priced at the time of award, it will generally be necessary to solicit a proposal from some or all contract holders to determine the supplier for order issuance. Some awardees may be more highly qualified to perform a specific task or have past performance experience which is considered beneficial for order performance. Under such circumstances, it may be in the business interest of the Postal Service to exclude particular awardees from consideration for a particular order. In the case of requirements for which further competition for task order placement is considered in the business interest of the Postal Service, the requirements document or request for proposal information will generally include the following:
When defining requirements for services, to the maximum extent practicable, performance-based work statements with measurable performance standards should be used. An effort should be made to minimize the cost to awardees associated with preparing proposals for orders. Consider limiting the size of proposals or permitting oral proposals.
The purchase/SCM team will determine the due date for responses and the level of proposal review required based on the nature and complexity of the requirement. Standard source selection procedures are not applicable or required. Discussions or negotiations may be held with one or more offerors when it is necessary to obtain additional information prior to making an order placement determination for the order.
The documentation included in the OPM should be streamlined, but appropriate for the size and complexity of the requirement and sufficient to support the conclusions reached about the quality of the supplier’s responses and the ultimate order placement determination.
For all delivery orders of goods or task orders for fixed-price services, the contracting officer must perform and document within an OPM the comparative analysis, including the review of relevant pricing, analysis of price/cost, documentation of any final discussions if any, and final results, any additional value obtained, that the order is within the contract maximum, and a determination that the order price is considered fair and reasonable. See Sections 2-31, Implement Proposal Evaluation Strategy; 2-34, Conduct Price/Cost Analysis; 2-37, Hold Discussions; 2-38, Negotiate with Suppliers; 2-40, Produce Contract Award Recommendation; 2-40.2, Best Value Determination and Award Recommendation.
For all task orders for services that were not fully defined and priced at the time of award, and for other orders such as those to be issued on a time and materials, labor-hour or cost-type basis, the contracting officer must perform and document within an OPM, as applicable, the comparative analysis for the technical and price/cost proposals, the analysis of price/cost, documentation of final discussions if any, and final negotiation results, the source determined to be in the business best interest of the Postal Service, that the order is within the contract’s maximum, and that the order price is considered fair and reasonable if fixed price or is a reasonable estimate if the order is to be issued on the basis of time and material, labor-hour or cost-type. See Sections 2-31, Implement Proposal Evaluation Strategy; 2-34, Conduct Price/Cost Analysis; 2-37, Hold Discussions; 2-38, Negotiate with Suppliers; 2-40, Produce Contract Award Recommendation; 2-40.2, Best Value Determination and Award Recommendation.
Reviews and approvals on orders under multiple-award indefinite-delivery contracts are in accordance with Sections 2-41, Obtain Selected Reviews and Approvals and 2-41.3.4.2, Reviews and Approvals of Orders – Multiple Awards. Where multiple indefinite-delivery contract awards have been made to support Postal Service requirements, and the order is valued at $1 million or more, higher level reviews and approvals are required. (See Section 7-1.1, Contracting Officer Levels.) Reviews and approvals are not required for orders valued under $1 million. For task and delivery orders that do not require further review and approval, contracting officers must have sufficient delegated authority to execute the orders.
Because the issuance of an order against an indefinite-delivery contract is not the same as the award of a contract, there is no need to follow the notification procedures addressed in Section 3-2.2, Publicizing Contract Awards. However, as a matter of business courtesy, the contracting officer should ensure a communication is sent to any contract holder who took part in further competition but did not receive the order. The PAEA reporting requirement applies to any delivery or task order valued at $50 million or more (see Section 2-42, Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act Related Reports and Certifications).
The Postal Service may place orders under an indefinite-delivery contract awarded by another federal agency subject to the terms and conditions of that particular contract and the procedures defined there in. Contracting officers should consider consulting with Legal Counsel before solicitation or award of a delivery or task order under another agency’s indefinite-delivery contract. Purchase planning requirements and required reviews and approvals are applicable on orders issued under other agency contract vehicles.
