Maureen

I knew it was a bad example!

Your organization has created a problem in its own mind. Well, not the organization. Most of them agree with you. I was troubled by ordering double or triple the initial estimated quantities. The contractor seems to be benefiting a lot from our inability to come up with a good estimate. But as you say, an estimate is an estimate, 'nuff said.

Mr. Edwards - always a pleasure to get your input! I was in the "Yes you need to synopsize" camp, though I can see the point you make. What bothers me is that I often see these contracts double or triple in size because "it's a requirements contract, it was only an estimate". It's the most convenient thing to do, but is it right? What mechanism puts the burden on the contracting officer to make a better business decision than to just do what is easy? Synopsizing can open a can of worms we may not want to deal with, but are we abiding by a guiding principle of the Federal Acquisition System to promote competition (FAR 1.102) or giving a contractor a whole lot more business because he was the most expedient approach to use?

One example that was discussed was our installation mortuary contract (forgive the morbidness). Say the contract was awarded for 15 departed. If a 16th should occur, we've exceeded our estimate. Some argue the basic contract should be modified to increase the estimated quantities so that the 16th order can be awarded. Should that modification be synopsized? Sorry, that may not be the best example. We do use a lot of requirements contracts here. Training sessions for certain classes for NCOs, for example. If we have a larger group of NCOs go through the classes and we've used up the estimated quantity half way through the year, should that year's estimate be increased and if so, do we modify the basic contract and synopsize that modification? Hope that helps.

During a recent training session covering the use of the DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record, a question came up regarding processing this document and issuing a synopsis when a requirements contract is modified to increase the estimated quantities. While it is understood that the order itself does not need to be synopsized, there was great debate as to whether the modification that increases the estimated quantities (should one need to be done) would need the coordination and the synopsis. The argument against included comments such as it was an estimate, we wouldn't know the exact amounts which is why we used the requirements contract type, there is no ceiling/max with this contract type, to what end would we use any information received from the synopsis (generally time wouldn't allow for a recompete or a new award to be made), we've not done this before, it has not come up in reviews. The argument for included comments such as the prima facia argument of competition, potential for better pricing with larger quantities. While it is understood that an immediate change to a different contract may not be possible, the information has been gathered for future use, say in the event the possiblity comes up again, or the consideration to get a new contract in the works. I couldn't find a specific citation in the FAR or DFARS that indicates a synopsis would be required when modifying a requirements contract. All I could find is that as an exception the order would not need to be. In fact, what the FAR does say, is that a synopsis is required for "Modification to an existing contract for additional supplies or services that meets the threshold in 5.101(a)(1)" [FAR 5.201((1)(ii)] - making no distinction for contract type. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

An excellent summary.

This is too funny. Just the other day our SAP Team Lead was pulling her hair out because our interns and new Contingency Contracting Officer were looking for that magic button. Actually, the Hill Air Force Base FAR site has a Clause Logic function, but my understanding is that it pulls in stuff you don't need, and misses stuff you do. The only way one can learn what needs to go in is by reviewing the FAR Matrix and the prescriptions for the clauses. As training coordinator, I am looking at doing a series of Brown Bag Lunch Clause Logic classes and go systematically through each section of the FAR as it applies to SAP and commercial requirements. We are so concerned that the new crop of 1102s coming in are becoming clerks; we have stop and give them the proper foundation.

Thank you, Vern, I always look for your posts. I know I looked at this document and for whatever reason just bypassed it. I went back and looked at it again and yes, a very comprehensive document. Now to get all this info into a 2 1/2 hour Thursday morning training session... Seven years to retirement!

As our Directorate of Contracting's training coordinator, I have been asked to put together training on Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASP). I have done my FAR, DFARS, and AFARS research, and have discovered minimal coverage of what a QASP is and what should be in it. 1102s are not QAEs, but they need to have a good understanding of what a PRS is and what a QASP is, what goes into them, and what the QAEs and CORs will be doing. I am looking for suggested sources of training materials - background, regulatory citations, guidance books, explanations, that sort of thing. I can get all kinds of samples, but I need to be able to explain and demonstrate the WHY, not just the WHAT. I would be very grateful for any assistance. Thank you.