Jump to content

dacaan

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I think the key issue is whether the FAR's organization is chronological or not. I assume there is general agreement that the FAR has structure, but I disagree with the statement that the FAR is structured in the chronological order of the acquisition process. Likewise, OP mentions ethical considerations and it is a reach to say it occurs before conducting acquisition planning, market research, and deciding on an ordering authority. I've read the OP's article a couple of times and I still don't understand the "so what" of his discussion. It reads like he is trying to provide insight to a new CS. However, if a CS has an A&E requirement is he or she to assume that they do not have to glance at Part 36 until after Market Research or an ordering authority is determined? The CS should be reviewing several of the parts concurrently throughout the acquisition process. Also, OP should have hit a hard stop when he lumped Part 16-41 into a single group. When you have four groups of 5 and one group with 25 --you have to question your original assumption.
  2. FAR 13.106-3(d) are RFI's ---presuming MM is referring to invoking FAR 52.212-1(l)--which calls it a debrief. I think it is reasonable to call it a debrief if the solicitation borrows evaluation criteria from part 15 and a provision calls out a debrief. This goes back to Jamaal's discussion on Finlen where the Gov't tried invoking only the convenient stuff (from both FAR parts). I think if you are using part 15 evaluation criteria and you have a solicitation provision using a part 15 term of art---then the Gov't should be obligated to all of the duties within that term of art unless there is language explicitly stating otherwise. However, there is that unjust holding in Shtor, B-411284 which stripped the FAR 52.212-1(l) "debriefing" of any of it's part 15 rights including the timeliness exception for protests. MM should check out the Shtor GAO case--because it is pretty clear that there is no debriefing requirement in part 13 procurements even if FAR 52.212-1(l) is included.
  3. I just read Matthew's response, I think it hits the mark. Thank you to all above.
  4. The sole source justification is a red herring. The rationale behind the purchase itself is the issue. I will go through with Vern's suggestion and find more GAO holding's regarding "legitimate need."
  5. Well the dictionary definition would be lawful or proper...which kind of brings back full circle. I think the rationale for the purchase is unlawful as stated "the purpose of awarding this contract is to build the industrial base" in the hopes that the awarded vendors will become sophisticated enough to compete with a vendor that has historically been awarded sole source contracts for this requirement.
  6. I'm here to learn. but that is insufficient, the analysis is far more important than the solution.
  7. I'm in the program office and not able to communicate with the Acquisition's Office. That being said, I could just go with the flow, but I bring this issue here for academic purposes.
  8. So the FAR 6 Justification is throwing off the issue. The issue is rather what is a "legitimate need." If a program office can state they are creating a contract in hopes that the experience will help with future competitions, is that a sufficient rationale for a legitimate need?
  9. The justification is to limit competition. Within the J&A, an argument is made that the rationale for providing contracts to a couple of vendors is that it will "build the industrial base". Providing this as rationale for these contracts raises all kinds of flags to me. I want to use another rationale for making these procurements...but I need to justify why this rationale raises flags. To me this purchasing rationale is not a "Legitimate Need" but I cannot get any kind of legal definition within the FA, DFARs, GAO, or FMR. I may be wrong btw...just looking for guidance.
  10. Hello all, first time poster. I have a client that wants to state in a J&A that the purpose of awarding a contract is to build industry. It seems an obvious violation of some rule...my first thought was that it violates the DoD FMR's "Bona Fide Need" rule...but this is a timing of appropritions argument. The "bona fide need" seems akin to the "legitimate need" phrase used in FAR Part 10. I have looked through GAO decisions and the FAR Part 2 and 10, but cannot seem to get a clear definition on what a "Legitimate Need" is. Please advise.
×
×
  • Create New...