Constricting Officer

I would make it 1, 3, and then 2/4. "Encouraged." They didn't, but if they were better at writing legislation it would have said the intent. Once a rule has been applied and a contract results at the local level, not only legally but also conceptually, it makes no sense to apply it again.

What if I said SB had already had their chance to compete for SAIDIQ and didn't make it? What if I said that the SB is a member of the MAIDIQ and agreed to the terms of such? Isn't fair opportunity defined by the contract at that point?

1-GAO specializes in this realm. 2-GAO cites precedent to support their decision and it is logical: GAO in B-419167 (Itility): "We further expounded on our statutory interpretation of Section 644(r) in Aldevra, B-411752, Oct. 16, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 339. In Aldevra, the protester, supported by the SBA, argued that because a proposed Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order had an anticipated value between the micropurchase and simplified acquisition thresholds, the agency was required to comply with small business set-aside requirements. We disagreed based on the discretionary language

Apologies that you have not received any assistance. I believe the reason for this is there is not a single "catch-all" answer to be given. What I would suggest, and this is what I would do: 1 - Do your best to reconcile and close them out (you have done that); 2 - If nothing more can be done, document the file with actions taken to reconcile; 3 - Adjust the contract amounts to reflect actual funding expended. The funds past 5 years after obligation are not there anyway; 4 - Make folders for those specific fiscal year contracts until they can be closed out in accordan

I agree with you in practice. The question was posed this way b/c if an acquisition, as defined by FAR 2.101, is bring planned and there are two small business concerns what right down we have not to set it aside. I posted my reaction - Applying the "Rule of Two" to MATOCs - Contract Award Process - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs. I agree with GAO. With that, I think we are walking into a different conversation from discussing a SAIDIQ/if we can use it or not compared to a MAIDIQ/whether or not to set aside some under it. If I am wrong let me know. I am here to learn and

Getting away from good ole FAR, as there is some logic missing. GSA has thousands of contracts that agencies can order from. If someone is sitting at DOE and wants to place a task order against a SAIDIQ, on FSS, with a LB and not consider small business concerns first, we all know how that turns out. But, if someone sitting at DOE has a "local" SAIDIQ, with a LB and the rule of two was applied to it, I believe it falls under the realm of an "established contract." FAR 2.101 - "Task order means an order for services placed against an established contract or with Government s

1. Yes FAR 2.101 - "Acquisition means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. Acquisition begins at the point when agency needs are established and includes the description of requirements to satisfy agency needs, solicitation and selection of sources, award of contracts, contract financing, contract performance, contract administration, and t

Question answered. It would have to be a good outlook on returns for the contractor to put the investment down up front and throughout.

I have not but like the thought process behind it. Question - Would something like this be set up where we pay them the cost of the DBFMO contract and the toll would be the contractor's profit (consideration)?

Regulations define the location for publishing opportunities over $25K as GPE. FAR 2.101 - "Governmentwide point of entry (GPE) means the single point where Government business opportunities greater than $25,000, including synopses of proposed contract actions, solicitations, and associated information, can be accessed electronically by the public. The GPE is located at www.fbo.gov." FBO no longer exist. Link - FBO.gov has moved (sam.gov) "FBO.gov has been moved to beta.SAM.gov and is now known as Contract Opportunities."

You post the justification with the solicitation. Still has to be posted to GPE. FAR 6.302-1(c)(ii)(C) - "The justification shall be posted with the solicitation (see 5.102(a)(6))." FAR 5.102(a)(6) - "When an acquisition contains brand name specifications, the contracting officer shall include with the solicitation the justification or documentation required by 6.302-1(c), 13.106-1(b), or 13.501, redacted as necessary (see 6.305)." Not like 6.302-2 where you can post after the fact. That would be an "Award Notice" for the purpose of your question.

What is the authority you are using to sole/limited/single source the requirement? FAR 6, 8 or 13? Urgency, Brand Name Only, etc?

"Color of Money" is a term DOD/Contracting in general uses for the "Availability of Appropriations for Purpose" (See The Red Book Chapter 4). What they can be used for. When funds are available for obligation or expire is a matter of "Availability of Appropriations for Time" (See The Red Book Chapter 5). Not sure what kind of contract you have, but without more information and generally speaking a five year period after the source appropriation was made: Red Book Chapter 1 - D.5 "Continuing our “life cycle” analogy, an appropriation “dies” in a sense at the end of its period of

Is it just me, or does 19.502-4 (c) apply to the competition requirements to establish IDC contracts under 16.500 (a), as oppose to ordering against an established contract under 16.505 (b) (ii)?

All over the place: GAO in B-419167 (Itility): "We further expounded on our statutory interpretation of Section 644(r) in Aldevra, B-411752, Oct. 16, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 339. In Aldevra, the protester, supported by the SBA, argued that because a proposed Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) order had an anticipated value between the micropurchase and simplified acquisition thresholds, the agency was required to comply with small business set-aside requirements. We disagreed based on the discretionary language of 15 U.S.C. § 644(r). Specifically, we explained that: Given the language of th