Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CharterParty

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Arlington, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Conundrum or Not? Do the procedures of FAR 13,14, & 15 apply to R&D contracts solicited following the procedures of 35.007? Here are my thoughts, FAR 35.006 is titled “Contracting Methods and Contract Type” the same title as SubChapter C (Parts 13-18). Within FAR 35 when other areas of contracting methods are required to be followed it states so expressly for example FAR 35.008(d) and (e), 35.007(d) and (e) . In contrast, FAR PART 13 states in 13.000 “Scope of part.” “This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services, including construction, research and development,….the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the Simplified acquisition threshold”…. Is an award solicited via a BAA consistent with FAR 35.007 below the SAP to perform an analysis consistent with FAR 13.106-3 or 35.008? FAR PART 15 states in 15.00 “Scope of part.” “This part prescribes policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions.” The restrictions on the exchanges normaly provided in FAR 15 are removed in FAR 35. Do the procedures in FAR 13.106 and FAR 15.404 apply note the statement at the end of 35.008(e)? Thoughts and general discussion is appreciated.
  2. CharterParty

    FAR 13 fair and reasonable

    I agree with Vern please don’t assume either the best or the worst. This is an intellectual question, not a questions of particular facts. Here is language from the NAVSUP 4200.85D: “FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE DETERMINATION Ref: Purchase Request/Solicitation Number_____________________ 1. I am recommending award to XXXXXXX. I used one or more of the following price analysis techniques compared to the quoted price of $____________. The quoted price was similar enough to the comparative price(s) to conclude that the quoted price is determined fair and reasonable. a. Adequate Price Competition. XX vendors were solicited and XX quotes were received. After comparing the quoted prices, I consider the quotes to be competitive. See the Simplified Acquisition Worksheet or other record of price quotes received.” Page 6-12. I have seen similar templates before in several offices. These are template documents that have check boxes. The contracting officer makes an assertion (Box check or otherwise like above) that the price is fair and reasonable based on competitive quotes and then two or more quotes are in the file to review. I don’t like this template’s use of the term “Adequate Price Competition”. As far as I can tell “Adequate Price Competition” is a term of art to describing procedures laid out in FAR 15. I have seen these templates in several offices and this question is one that always comes up. FAR 13.106-3(a) has only three options for price fair and reasonableness (1), (2), or (3). (1) leads with “ (1) Whenever possible, base price reasonableness on competitive quotations or offers. “ then (2) states “ (2) If only one response is received, include a statement of price reasonableness in the contract file. The contracting officer may base the statement on— (i) Market research; (ii) Comparison of the proposed price with prices found reasonable on previous purchases; (iii) Current price lists, catalogs, or advertisements. However, inclusion of a price in a price list, catalog, or advertisement does not, in and of itself, establish fairness and reasonableness of the price; (iv) A comparison with similar items in a related industry; (v) The contracting officer’s personal knowledge of the item being purchased; (vi) Comparison to an independent Government estimate; or (vii) Any other reasonable basis.” Competitive is not defined in FAR 2 or FAR 13 and I don’t know how you would apply the definition of adequate price competition to a FAR 13 procurement. Do two tractor suppliers who sell you a computer for your tractor count as competition? These tractor suppliers are stuck buying the computer from tractor manufacturer who normally does not sell direct (even to the federal Government). Don’t use the term tractor to confuse this question, it could equally be cell phone maker, engine manufacturer, software supplier. I also suspect this will become more of an issue in the future as software makes more items unique and necessary to keep the whole package working.
  3. While conducting reviews of SAP purchases a colleague and I had an discussion about what is necessary to award at a fair and reasonable price, in a particular situation. While price reasonableness is always a function of all the facts in a given procurement, absent any clear evidence of collusion or improper business relationships. Would two quotes from authorized distributors be sufficient fair and reasonable pricing? Assume that the determination necessary to support a single source BN/OEM has been properly executed for a part/item. Award is made to low price quoter of the same part/item. Would quotes from two different authorized distributors for the same BN/OEM item be sufficient price analysis to meet the threshold of FAR 13.106-3(a)(1)?