Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,114 profile views
  1. This might be a simple answer to my inquiry, but I want to verify based on my interpretation. Situation: A C-type contract (i.e., single award) was awarded to a small business. At a later date, the firm was bought by a large firm. Thus, the small business CAGE and DUNNS, and their reps and certs. in SAM changed to large business, but the firm kept its company name. Based on SBA guidance and reading on previous posting relative to mine... the main outcome was "A concern that qualified as a small business at the time it receives a contract is considered a small business throughout the life of that contract." I addressed the issue to our legal and they provided the following response: "13 CFR §121.404(g)(2)(i) is the applicable section and requires you to "no longer count the options or orders issued pursuant to the contract" towards small business goals" and "immediately revise all applicable Federal contract databases to reflect the new size status." Reading through the script on the reference legal provided I noticed that it mentioned Multiple Award Contracts nothing specifically for single award. Question: Does the provided reference Title 13 CFR §121.404(g)(2)(i) warrants me to change the small business status to a large business or is it specifically addressing only Multiple Award Contracts?
  2. Thanks Don. I reached out to someone at DPAP/DARS on the matter and they've acknowledge my concerns on the mater. The result is the update which you point out. It is good to know that DPAP/DARS actually responds to inquiries like mine .
  3. Update: After discussions with a POC at OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, the following was pointed out: Reference to DFARS 215.371-4 - Exceptions, specifically DFARS 215.371-4(a)(1) states "Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition THRESHOLD (emphasis given);" for a Waiver per DFARS 215.371-5. The Simplified Acquisition PROCEDURES (emphasis given) is authorized under FAR Subpart 13.5. FAR Subpart 13.5, specifically, FAR 13.500(a) states "This subpart authorizes, as a test program, use of simplified procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services in amounts greater than the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $6.5 million ($12 million for acquisitions as described in 13.500(e)), DFARS 215.371-4 provides an exception for acquisitions at or below the Simplified Acquisition THRESHOLD. Reference to DFARS 215.371 – Policy it states “It is DoD Policy, IF only one offer is received in response to a competitive solicitation - (a) To take the required actions to promote completion (see DFARS 215.371-2); and (B ) To ensure that the price is fair and reasonable (see DFARS 215.371-3) and to comply with the statutory requirement for certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.403-4).” DFARS 215.371-2 – Promote completion states “Except as provided in sections 215.371-4 and 215.371-5, if only one offer is received when competitive procedures were used and the solicitation allowed fewer than 30 days for receipt of proposals (emphasis given), the contracting officer shall—“ Based on my understanding on the DFARS cited, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) IF a FAR Subpart 13.5 acquisition was competed > 30-days and only one offeror is received under an anticipated competitive solicitation you do not need to follow the guidance stated in DFARS 215.371. You still have a responsibility to ensure that the price is fair and reasonable. 2) IF a FAR Subpart 13.5 acquisitions was solicited < 30-days and only one offeror is received under an anticipated competitive solicitation you need to follow the guidance stated in DFARS 215.371. 3) Similarly to # 2, if the contracting agency decides to waive the requirement based on the situation stated in DFARS 215.371-2 – Promote completion (only one offer is received when competitive procedures were used and the solicitation allowed fewer than 30 days for receipt of proposals). Then IAW DFARS 215.375(a) “The head of the contracting activity is authorized to waive the requirement at 215.371-2 to resolicit for an additional period of at least 30 days.”
  4. Steward. "DOD Class Justification are Used Primarily for Acquisition of Weapon Systems and related Components" is an assessment outcome made by GAO and not necessarily a reflection of what FAR states… if this is what you mean then duly noted. I sometimes take GAO’s responses literally regarding its reference to the FAR/DFARS. THAT and as I was reading the report at 5:00 AM in the morning, coffee had not kicked in. Joel. It would seem simpler to establish an IDIQ type contract to the firm providing the OEM supply. However, for lack of reasons (which I am still trying to question – it maybe that the agency want options on contract type when procuring the OEM supply), a Class J&A would opt not having to do individual J&A for every separate procurement that the agency does for the same OEM supply. Break: I did some more reading and I noticed that per discussion http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/955-sole-source-acquisition-under-far-subpart-135/, which referenced FAR 6.303-2(a)(4), which states “An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open completion” – reference no longer exist. So, I guess terming a J&A – OTFOC – Sole Source under FAR 13.5 would now be appropriate?
  5. I also hope they reinstate the language - it is just very convoluted Keep an eye out for public comments to address and hopefully they will acknowledge.
  6. Greetings, Referenced to the following GAO report on http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662579.pdf I am trying to find out if anyone knows where I can find the reference to the report statement “ DOD Class Justification are Used Primarily for Acquisition of Weapon Systems and related Components…” in the FAR, DFARS, USC, CFR, etc… On a similar note I have a question pertaining to Class J&A: Taking into consideration the following discussions: http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum440.htm http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/955-sole-source-acquisition-under-far-subpart-135/ The following comments were made on the discussion referenced, “…because the requirement for full and open competition does not apply to acquisitions under Subpart 13.5. See FAR 6.001(a). FAR 13.501 requires that you follow the "format" in 6.303-2, which does not prescribe a title for the document. "Sole Source Justification" or "Sole Source Justification and Approval" is proper, because that is what it is if you are soliciting and negotiating with only once source and that is how such acquisitions are referred to in FAR 13.106-1( B ). "Justification and Approval" is inadequate.” Taking in this consideration of using the term Sole Source Justification… is there such a thing called Class Sole Source Justification. The only place I have found where there is even a mention of “Class” Justification is under FAR 6.303. “Justifications required by paragraph (a) above may be made on an individual or class basis. Any justification for contracts awarded under the authority of 6.302-7 shall only be made on an individual basis. Whenever a justification is made and approved on a class basis, the contracting officer must ensure that each contract action taken pursuant to the authority of the class justification and approval is within the scope of the class justification and approval and shall document the contract file for each contract action accordingly.” Our office has an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supply, which I’ve noticed has been procured numerous times, and each time it’s procured a J&A – OTFOC using 13.5 (I know… term may be wrong based on the discussion linked) is done and goes through the same acquisition process (e.g., publishing). I was thinking of doing a Class J&A or in this case a “Class Sole Source Justification” – if it is appropriate to call it that. Reason for this term, is… I anticipate the overall cost per year for this OEM supply to be around $5.5M (below the $6.5 threshold for FAR 13.5), thus, I would reference 13.501(a) for my actions. Yes, I could establish an IDIQ of some sort (but that is another story…). I am focus on the J&A aspect for now. Is this a reasonable approach?
  7. So, this question has been brought up numerous times amongst my colleagues, in DAU, and other contracting forums. What is the difference between Attachments vs Technical Exhibits “Exhibits”? I emphasized for DoD, as some non-DoD agencies identify Attachments vs Exhibits as no difference/synonymous. DAU postings relative to the inquire are as follows: https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=3&cgiQuestionID=109437 https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=3&cgiQuestionID=110417 Wifcon: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1639-exhibits-and-attachments-what-is-the-difference/ When I first started, I asked the question to our legal advisor regarding the difference. They said that Attachments are not legally binding vs. Exhibits, which are. I remember reading a legal article about this, which validated their statement and I carried that thought process throughout my acquisition career. Reference to DFARS 204-7101 – Definitions. “Attachments” means any documentation, appended to a contract or incorporated by reference, which DOES NOT (emphasis given) establish a requirement for deliverables. “Exhibit” means a document, referred to in a contract, which is attached and establishes requirements for deliverables. The term shall not be used to refer to any other kind of attachments to a contract. The DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List, is always an exhibit, rather than an attachment. I’ve seen agencies post solicitations under Section J or even in non UCF contracts referencing CDRLS, SOW/PWS, Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), to name a few as Attachments rather than identifying them correctly, as I feel to be Technical Exhibits… So, what is DoD’s standard other than what is stated in DFARS 204-7101. Is the claim that one is “legally binding” than the other a true statement in its regard? And please do not give me the speech that this is trivial… using the proper terms to me is important. Such as saying “this is a request for quote… all proposals shall…” which I’ve seen a lot in FBO.
  8. Happy New Year All! Based on my last posting, I just wanted to provide an update on this topic as I had stated previously. Interesting enough, the firm withdrew its protest (mind you this was a few years ago) -- I guess it was done prematurely and were “emotional” about not getting the award (purely speculative on my part J) The firm requested a FOIA, which I assumed was for them to do some fact finding to substantiate/warrant a potential protest of, "...could not possibly do the job at the price it had proposed..." on their part. In this case, they may not have found anything that would have led to any biasness, arbitrary, capricious, or non-accordance with laws/regulations actions, etc. from the Government. In spite of the issue and outcome, I last heard from the ACO (back in 2012 - 13) who was responsible for the contract admin... The contractor had performance issues with meeting Government requirements (i.e., task orders issued and scope requirement, which were still IAW the terms and conditions of the contract). I assume it may or may not have been attributed to their price [Minor detail: reason for price variance between the two offerors was due to proposed personnel to do the job – this is a performance base acquisition]... famous quote... "We did not anticipate the demand on workload based on the price proposed..." Contractor is still performing, but with some struggles, which I am sure would be reflected on their CPARS… and I believe it is coming up for re compete. The lessoned I learned from this, as I have stated previously… No matter how much effort you do as a 1102 (due diligence), subject to constraints of the law, regulation, policy, etc… you abide by these guidance, your acquisition, and hope that whoever gets the award knows and CAN perform the job successfully with, hopefully, little to no issues. Could we have considered a different approach to evaluations (i.e., best value) maybe, but that is for another topic. Note: There is a lot of information that could lead to other question/conclusions regarding this posting… I hope readers look at this situation at face value.
  9. Vern, I've read the references provided prior to posting and quite frankly it led me to other references, to other references, and ultimately I felt like my research was never ending. So, thank you for your feedback.
  10. Just a general question. Has anyone gone through a job interview for Policy in the DoD? I am curious as to what types of questions an employer normally ask or look for?
  11. Greetings, I was hoping someone could provide some information regarding DFARS 215.371-5 applicability to FAR Subpart 13.5. When the requirement for DFARS 215.371-5 came about (Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-29/html/2012-15569.htm there was no mention to the ruling's applicability to the Test Program FAR Subpart 13.5 procurements. Further reading into the volume, it was stated, "It is simply not feasible to apply the rule to the huge volume of very low dollar value buy..." referring to SAP buys. My interpretation on this is that if DFARS 215.371-5 is not applicable for SAP to include procurements using FAR Subpart 13.5 -- this is just my interpretation and is not substantiated with narratives/references found on any other sources. What has been the take for the Department of Defense on these actions? Is DFARS 215.371-5 applicable to FAR Subpart 13.5? If so, can you provide citations/references? Happy Holidays!
  12. I want to echo what others have posted on this topic. Thank you guys (e.g., Vern, formerfed, Don, and others) for taking the time out of your busy schedule to respond to people's inquiries/questions and concerns (even though some may have already been answered more than once in this forum site) -- just in a different context. I remember my first post back in 2009 as an Army intern (clueless and only starting to learn the Acquisition career field)... the responses I got provided some insight/guidance on what I should take into consideration... AND I can attest that this site, the educated and candid responses (ahem Vern) I've received/read HELP contribute to my professional development in this career field. So a BIG THANK YOU contracting professionals!
  13. Can someone please provide some information/clarification on the verbiage change under FAR 13.501? Previously it had stated in FAR 13.501(a)(1)(ii) "Prepare sole source justifications using the format at 6.303-2, modified to reflect an acquisition under the authority of the test program for commercial items (section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996) or the authority of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (Title XIV of Public Law 108-136) as implemented at 12.102(f)(1)." I guess my organization (Navy) (which I was just hired into) used the reference Section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 whenever they bought supplies under the test program. However, when I checked the FAR reference, to date, verbiage changed to 41 U.S.C. 1901 or the authority of 41 U.S.C. 1903. My question is - why did they changed it from referencing Section 4204 of the Clinger-Cohen Act to 41 USC 1901 or 1903 -- I wanted to know the history. I haven't really focused on this in the past, but by minor research this occurred sometime when they removed 13.5 back in 2012 and reinstated it again. Additionally, why did they reference Clinger-Cohen Act for supplies buys -- I was under the impression it was used mostly, if not all, for Information Technology.
  14. Wow Don and Dingo thanks for the detailed discussion you both have had relative to my posting - this gives me insight on the Navy ship repair requirement, which initially I couldn't wrap my head around especially from NAVSEA's approach on scarcely instilling commercial practice on SOME services done on Navy vessels. Looking more on trying to streamline an acquisition I am currently working on, considering of course cost, administration/time, and quality. And as I've stated, I am new to Navy ship repair. My requirement in my opinion clearly screams commercial service; however with NAVSEA and its guidance, the acquisition approach led me to treat the requirement as a non-commercial “supply,” and apply the Walsh-Healey Act. Now, Dingo did mention in his opinion that he doesn’t necessarily believe that “a wage determination should drive the entire body of the contract,” but in my case, with a simple service that I feel could be done commercially; it isn’t a viable option. Because as NAVSEA sees it, my requirement is done to a Navy vessel, thus, the push for the applicability of the Walsh-Healey Act -- justifying why ship repair requirements should not be treated as commercial, and its interpretation of the service being a “supply,” is a more reasonable acquisition approach.
  15. Dingo and Don by definition of Commercial and my reading on the requirement I say it is commercial. However, I want to get some input on Navy requirements as I am new to ship repair acquisitions. Basically, the requirement is what they call an “Availability” (i.e., Scheduled Maintenance/Repair), specifically, docking phase maintenance availability (DPMA) on a vessel. The NAICS code used is 336611 with a PSC of J999. I guess what I am confused about is if we decided to use the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, it would make the acquisition non-commercial – or am I wrong on this assumption. Has anyone had experience with procuring an “Availability” requirement using FAR Part 13.5?
  • Create New...