Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Rural_co

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/24/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Phoenix, AZ
  1. The latest on this! Congress restores small business contracting parity! http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?arti...oref=todaysnews
  2. I too, am very confused about these two decisions. In accordance with ?FAR 19.800 (e): BEFORE deciding to set aside an acquisition in accordance with subpart 19.5, 19.13, or 19.14 the contracting officer should review the acquisition for offering under the 8(a) Program. If the acquisition is offered to the SBA, SBA regulations (13 CFR 126.607() give first priority to HUBZone 8(a) concerns.? So you don?t have to look them up, 19.5 (Set-asides for Small Business) 19.13 (HubZone Program) 19.14 (Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program). Therefore, FAR 19.8 specifically states that the Contracting Officer should review the acquisition for offering under the 8(a) Program FIRST. Remember, HUBZone is mentioned here, AFTER offering the acquisition to SBA which would mean under the 8(a) program, 8(a) HUBZones would be considered for the 8(a) set-aside first before non HUBZone 8(a)?s. Isn?t that what this says here? I guess the word ?before? is confusing me. ?19.501 ? General (a) The purpose of small business set-asides is to award certain acquisitions exclusively to small business concerns. A ?set-aside for small business? is the reserving of an acquisition exclusively for participation by small business concerns.? Therefore, when you are setting aside for small business, except under noncompetitive HUBZone or SDVOB, we are talking about competitive solicitations, not contracts awarded under the 8(a) statutory authority. I have a perhaps different interpretation of 19.1304 Exclusions. Going back to FAR 19.800(e), if a Contracting Officer has reviewed the acquisition, and has determined in should be offered under the 8(a) program, then (remember, directly from 19.1304 Exclusions), (d) Requirements currently being performed by an 8(a) participant or ?requirements SBA has accepted for performance under the authority of the 8(a) Program? (I take this to mean current 8(a) contracts and new requirements that have been offered to SBA), unless SBA has consented to release the requirements from the 8(a) Program;?, if, the SBA has accepted for performance under the authority of the 8(a) Program, then under SubPart 19.13, an 8(a) requirement is EXCLUDED from Subpart 19.13, the HUBZone Program. Why? Because under FAR 19.800(e), you have offered the acquisition under the 8(a) Program, and that is BEFORE considering this for any other set-aside program. From VBus?s comment: GAO?s new ruling again places priority on the ?mandatory language? of HubZone set-asides over all other types of SB set-asides, including those already in the 8(a) Program. That mandatory language is found at 15 U.S.C. sect. 657a((2)(: ==== ?Notwithstanding any other provision of law a contract opportunity shall be awarded pursuant to this section on the basis of competition restricted to qualified HUBZone small business concerns if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that not less than 2 qualified HUBZone small business concerns will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price.? Again, 15 U.S.C sect. 657a((2)( refers to basis of competition. If you are setting aside an acquisition for an 8(a) firm under statutory authority, you are not in a competitive situation. Thoughts? I am totally off base with my interpretation? Are we in need of a FAR rewrite here?