Jamaal Valentine

Since debriefings are hotly contested they are often less useful than they could (should?) be. Notifications and debriefings are uneven from office to office and contracting officer to contracting officer. For example, some offices/contracting officers won’t provide the successful offeror’s past performance rating and some will. The variation comes from inconsistent beliefs on whether or not the rules permit release of the rating.

You might want to start with the DoD FMR if you are DoD. (See pages 8-13 and 8-14 for definitions) https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_08.pdf Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, also known as the Red Book, is a good place to look for civilian agency employees. (Chapter 5?) https://www.gao.gov/mobile/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/red-book

Both. Read it as either or. In other words, it’s required if either condition or both conditions are met.

FAR 15.503(b)(1) states that notifications to unsuccessful offerors shall include, in general terms, the reason(s) the offeror’s proposal was not accepted... FAR 15.506(d)(2) postaward debriefings include the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices) and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror... What are your thoughts on providing the past performance rating (e.g., Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating) of the successful offeror on either document?

In reality, there is a discrepancy, but there are deviations (that came much later) to resolve them. For purposes of this poll, just respond to the question based on the information and scenario provided and add commentary in the comments. No different than many standardized WIFCON quizzes, polls, etc. that are framed. Don’t read into it, overthink, or over-complicate it with extrinsic information (Deviations). (If it helps, consider what you would have done during the years there weren’t any class deviations)

Both; however, the poll relates to the regulatory language (without consideration of the DoD Deviation or CAAC Letter). It’s a single, scenario-based, question asking what people would do ‘as framed’. I fully expected commentary and discourse in the comments. It’s WIFCON.

Why? The poll isn’t about the DoD’s deviation nor the CAAC Letter. The question stands alone. If that’s hard to understand, just consider the years there was no deviation; think about future cases such as FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability of Small Business Regulations Outsidethe United States. This was and is a post to talk through appropriate responses to conflicting regulations.

@ji20874 in the past the FAR council has stated that contracting officers should follow FAR. I recall that the case law doesn’t necessarily support their statement, but I’m with you, the solution is just a deviation away. Unfortunately, many (most) contracting officers don’t have easy access to deviations authorities. One would think that class deviations would be appropriate considering it’s taking several years to process the open FAR Case (2016-011).

—Poll Question Is Above— FAR 19.505(c)(5) Exception to the nonmanufacturer rule. The SBA provides for an exception to the nonmanufacturer rule when— (ii) The cost is not anticipated to exceed $25,000; vs. 13 CFR §121.406(c) The performance requirements (limitations on subcontracting) and the nonmanufacturer rule do not apply to small business set-aside acquisitions with an estimated value between the micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold (as both terms are defined in the FAR at 48 CFR 2.101).

You’re likely going to get tied up with more than SAM — 4.1804 Solicitation provisions and contract clause. (a) Insert the provision at 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting, in all solicitations that include– (1) 52.204-6, Unique Entity Identifier; or (2) 52.204-7, System for Award Management.

I moved across the globe and started a new role as a Division Chief and have been spending most of my time at work or doing work related tasks. I’ve finally got a full staff and some stability at most of the seven locations so I should be active again.

Love this!

Remember, if you use FAR Subpart 17.2 for A&E—like many do—you may be required to follow FAR Subpart 17.2 procedures. “While FAR Subpart 17.2 by its terms does not apply to construction contracts, we conclude that the agency is bound to follow the procedures of FAR § 17.208 once, as here, it incorporates either clause (FAR §§ 52.217-4 or 52.217-5) providing for evaluation of options. See Foley Co., B-245536, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 47 at 4 n.2.“ It’s best you write your own option clauses if you don’t want to be bound to the Subpart.

To be clear, despite being labeled as a simple question, the question is missing several key pieces of information. For example, the dollar value, subcontracting opportunities, and World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement applicability could drive the answer. See also, FAR 5.301(b) for a long list of other possible drivers (exceptions).

The phrase award announcement is not found in FAR Part 5 so I am not sure what you are really looking for. Maybe FAR 5.303(a)(1) or 5.202(a)(4)? (I am not sure of either because you have already read FAR Part 5...is the question about posting to FBO specifically, public announcements, synopsizing contract awards, synopsizing contract actions...?) Based on your own experience it doesn’t appear to be the same everywhere. Did you read FAR Subpart 5.3? What’s your opinion; “do you need to post in FBO an 8(a) award announcement”? Why or why not? What has your research led you to bel