GOVCO

.....50+ views and no responses yet. Either, 1) People think my question is idiotic. 2) People think I'm idiotic for asking the question. 3) People are just as clueless as I. 4) No one cares. 5) Other. So, which is it WIFCONers? I really do want to know the answer. Please don't make me hit the infamous "search" button. [Climbs into flame suite]

Scenario: A CO/KO issues two separate FFP delivery orders for supplies to be delivered within 30-days from time of award. One delivery order is awarded for $100k. The other is $160k. Contractor delivers supplies within 30-day timeframe. Supplies are inspected, and accepted by Government. Contractor submits two invoices 30-days after Government accepts supplies, one for $100k, the other for $160k. Government renders payment within allowable timeframe for full amount of each invoice. Question: Does the office administering the contract, ordering agency in this case, follow the time standards in FAR 4.804-1 for closing out the two FFP orders issued against the vendors GSA FSS Contract? If so, what time standard is applicable (i.e. [a][1], [a][2], [a][3], [a][4], or neither)? If neither, what time standard would be applicable, and why? My Thought: Follow time standards in Federal Acquisition Regulation 4.804-1[a][2]: ....

[Preface - Yes, this is old.] Any idea when the FAR will be updated to reflect the changes to 41 U.S.C.?

I do not believe the CO received an email if the contractor rep email was invalid. However, CPARS does issue a notification.

Just checking in regarding my follow-up post #11.

Thanks everyone who responded to my topic. So, to be crystal about the answer to my topic as it becomes effective tomorrow, I understand the responses, and I tend to agree. However, the language in Subpart 8.405-6[2][iii] still seems to require a justification any time we have a requirement, at the order level, for a brand-name (no exceptions) that was not completed for the BPA. Is there another possible interpretation of this language? [Puts on flame suit for dragging this issue out]

No, you got it right. Let me elaborate a little more: Scenario: An agency intends to establish a single award BPA against GSA schedule for a supply (laptops). When soliciting for the BPA set-up, the agency does not specify a brand name. Rather, they list the salient characteristics of the laptop we need. Three vendors submit quotes. All offer a different brand name (Dell, HP, and Acer). We review the quotes and make award to, let's say, Dell for laptop model XYZ. Questions: 1. Do we need a brand name justification every time we issue a call exceeding $25K to Dell under the BPA? If so, where do we post it? 2. Instead of a justification for every order, can we create a brand name justification after we award the BPA (since we now know that all or most of our laptop orders will be for Dell)? If we can do this, where would we post the justification (to eBuy)? And would we need to post an RFQ with it (i.e., the RFQ we used to establish the BPA)? Reason for questions: 1. Language in 8.405-6 [2][iii] states what I listed above. However, maybe I'm getting hung-up on applying that logic to BPA calls when the BPA itself was "competitive." Then again, as you say, since it was competitive, "it is merely the product of the winning quote." 2. Additionally, aand I know I didn't mention this in my initial post, however, the language at 16.505(a)(4)(II) states "A justification is required unless a justification covering the requirements in the order was previously approved for the contract in accordance with 6.302-1[c] or unless the base contract is a single-award contract awarded under full and open competition." Now, I know FAR Part 16 is not applicable to GSA schedule buys. HOWEVR, the logic in 16.505 seems to be: if you competed the single award contract, and didn't limit the initial contract award to a brand name, there is no need to justify your "brand name" orders against what has now become a "de facto" brand name contract (please see laptop example above). Couldn't we apply the same logic to single award BPAs made against GSA schedule contracts? This is maybe what I was getting at above; but wanted to hear it first. 3. Finally, in the FR Notice text, they discuss several comments they received under the heading "What to Post." In their response, they state: "The justification for use of a brand-name specification and posting of the justification should take place when the requirement for the brand-name item is determined. This will result in different timing for multiple-award contracts from single-award contracts, e.g., requirements contracts. By definition, a requirements contract is with a single source. Therefore the requirement for the source's brand-name item is determined prior to award of the basic contract, and the justification for purchasing a brand-name item should be completed prior to award of the requirements contract." The language says the justification "should be completed prior to award of the requirements contract," not necessarily prior to issuing the solicitation. Is the purpose of this to say we could write (and post?) the justification after we made the award decision? If we did this, even for an open market award, where would we post the justification? And what would we post for the RFQ? Sorry for the long-winded follow-up. As a junior wonk, I often over analyze.

Then you get into the issue about what do you select from the dropdown menu in FBO if you intend to go sole source... IMHO, the only viable selection would be 'Presolicitation Notice,' with the caviat you state in the synopsis you intend to negotiate on a sole source basis, unless someone else can provide a capability statement and justification as to how they can meet your requirement.

Quick Reference to FAC 2005-55, Item III - Brand Name Specifications Can someone clarify the following new FAR change to Subpart 8.405-6(2)(iii) as it relates to a CO establishing a single-award BPA, if the BPA was competed, but the brand-name item was determined post-award at the order level: For example, if a CO competes a five year BPA per Subpart 8.405-3(1)(ii), with an estimated value of $20 million, receives at least three quotes from contractors who can fulfill the requirement, fairly considers all quotes (let's say three were received), but issues a single-award BPA, seems the justification for brand-name item would come at the BPA order level. What about posting the RFQ and justification or documentation limiting consideration to an item peculiar to one manufacturer to eBuy. I wouldn't have an RFQ per say in a single-award scenario. A CO would send the awardee the order. Which would make me think you should justifiy the brand-name item(s) at the BPA setup level. Confucious says, shed some light on this otherwise clear as mud final decision.

Thanks ji20874 and Oyster. While I realize my scenario was lacking facts, unfortunately, I wasn't given much myself. I do appologize for the lack of specifics. I appreciate your comments and information.

This was only a general question. As in, is this even allowed for, if so, under what authority? If not, provide something that concludes this. In terms of the "precise appropriation" being proposed, I do not know, short of annual appropriations. Again, this is a general question to see if this can even be done. When you say "precise appropriation," what do you mean? In addition, the question/scenario was proposed to our counsel. I figured I would be proactive and research for myself.

Hello again WIFCON, Question: Can an agency use appropriations to procure transportation services to transport members of the public from one agency location to another? Please provide any case law, or regulations either supporting, or rejecting this practice. Scenario - Agency use to perform certain services for the public via temporary remote sites. Remote sites are no longer available. Agency would like to accommodate members of public who are unable to travel to the necessary location due in part because of the distance between their home, and location where service is now performed. Thanks in advance!

Agree 100% with Joel concerning some agencies do not see this as a high priority when compared to other work. Did not realize you are a contractor. One thing I would inquire about with your CO is what type of assessment the agency plans on doing, if any, against your task order. There are certain dollar thresholds as previously noted, and different ways to go about doing an assessment depending on the type of ocntract you have. For example, CPARs under Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, Basic Ordering Agreements and Blanket Purchase Agreements may be done in the following ways: - On each order meeting the FAR threshold and combining all other orders into one CPAR - On each order - By combining all orders into one CPAR, regardless of their dollar value Having said all of this, definitely inquire with your CO. If all else fails, you can contact the Agency/Activity CPARS Focal Point. If you do not know this, call the CPARS Help Desk at (207) 438-1690, or send an email to webptsmh@navy.mil. Good luck!

There is not a "hard fast deadline for when an Agency has to complete a CPAR." However, the DoD CPARS Policy Guide, along with the subsequent CPARS training, suggests the entire workflow be completed in 120 calendar days. (See Subsection 3.5.3 of the DoD CPARS Policy Guide) Even the 120 calendar day timeframe is not set in stone. However, I recommend adhering to this "objective," as used in the DoD CPARS User Manual: CPARS Reference Material As you noted, there is a timeframe tied to how much time we must give a contractor to respond. (See FAR Subpart 42.1503, Note: If you are from DoD, you should follow the DoD CPARS Policy Guide. If you are from a civilian agency, then check your internal policy. I bet your agency adopted a similar timeframe for the entire process. Being from a civilian agency myself, we used the DoD CPARS Policy Guide as a template for creating our own internal policy regarding contractor performance. We did this mainly because a civilian version is not available yet.

Are you from DoD or a civilian agency?

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. Much appreciated.

Hello WIFCON World, Questions: 1. Does anyone here work for an agency that provides their COR (or COTR) with a separate Pre-Award check list, letter, etc. prior to formally designating him/her as a COR (or COTR)? If so, can you provide me a sample? If not a separate check list or letter, do you include pre-award responsibilities within your customary 'post-award' COTR Designation Memorandum? 2. During what phase (e.g. Acq. Planning, Solicitation, etc.) of your acquisition do you provide this information, if at all? Background - FAC 2005-50; FAR Case 2008-030; Item 1 This FAC publication added several things. As you may be aware, FAR Subpart 7.104(e) adds a requirement for a COR to be nominated, and designated and authorized by the CO, "as early as practicable int he acquisition process." Since this language appears in the Acquisition Planning" Part of the FAR, I pressume the intent is to meet this requirement during this phase of the acquisition process, "if practicable."

Thanks again Napolik. I was more concerned over whether the CO can designate, not delegate, the responsibility to place orders to Ordering Officials by indicating as such in the BPA or IDC. Currently, these individuals/positions are specified in the BPA or IDC along with any terms or conditions they must adhere to. The CO does not issue a letter of appointment, or delegate any sort of acquisition authority. I want to make sure this is not in violation of the FAR in some way. Our agency treats Ordering Officials as non-warranted individuals that do not have acquisition authority. However, micro-purchases are issued a certificate of appointment by levels well above our CO. Those individuals, similar to our COs, are appointed in writing, and have training requirements they must meet to be appointed with this authority. The difference at our agency between an Ordering Official and someone who is delegated micro-purchase authority is the micro-purchaser holds a warrant, and the Ordering Official does not. Just trying to figure the best possible approach moving forward as this area in our policy is currently up for review. Requiring Ordering Officials to be appointed in writing and issued a delegation of authority would be a change in culture. This may not be a bad thing as long as it is best practice to do so. Not to mention if what we have been doing, again, was in violation of the FAR. I appreciate everyone guidance!

Is there a difference between designating and appointing (or delegating) an Ordering Official to merely place orders? If the order(s) have already been determined fair and reasonable by the CO at time of award, and the Ordering Official(s) are specified in the BPA or contract, along with the terms and conditions of their ordering authority, why does/should the CO issue an appointment letter? In thise case, the CO is not delegating (or appointing) the Ordering Official to have micro-purchase authority, which is often coupled with having a purchase card. All they are doing is stating that certain individuals/positions within a specified area are authorized to place an order(s) under the BPA or contract at the stated prices.

Thanks Vern and Napolik!

Vern - Internal policy says, "Ordering Official: An individual identified in a BPA or IDC as one authorized to place orders under the BPA or contract. Ordering Officials do not have acquisition authority and can only place orders as specified in the BPA or contract." Is it safe to say this is left up to agency procedures? Does this violate the FAR in any way if I, as the CO, designate ordering officials under either a BPA or IDC to place orders; whether above or below the MPT?

Topic: Delegate or Designate Authority to an Ordering Official under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) or other Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) ? Which is proper? Scenario: I have a BPA and an Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for various supplies. I would like to designate ordering officials to place orders against both my BPA and IDIQ contract. The orders will range from below the MPT to above the MPT. Questions: 1. Can a Contracting Officer delegate ordering authority below the micro-purchase threshold to a non-warranted program official? If so, how? If not, why? 2. Can a Contracting Officer designate ordering authority above the micro-purchase threshold to a non-warranted program official? If so, how? If not, why? 3. Is a contracting officer warrant necessary to be an Ordering Official under a BPA or other IDC whether above or below the micro-purchase threshold? FAR citations referenced for scenario: Subpart 2.1: ?Contracting officer? means a person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. The term includes certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated by the contracting officer. ?Administrative contracting officer (ACO)? refers to a contracting officer who is administering contracts. ?Termination contracting officer (TCO)? refers to a contracting officer who is settling terminated contracts. A single contracting officer may be responsible for duties in any or all of these areas. Reference in this regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1) to administrative contracting officer or termination contracting officer does not? (1) Require that a duty be performed at a particular office or activity; or (2) Restrict in any way a contracting officer in the performance of any duty properly assigned. ?Micro-purchase? means an acquisition of supplies or services using simplified acquisition procedures, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold. Subpart 1.602 Contracting officers. 1.602-1 Authority. a) Contracting officers have authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. Contracting officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them. Contracting officers shall receive from the appointing authority (see 1.603-1) clear instructions in writing regarding the limits of their authority. Information on the limits of the contracting officers? authority shall be readily available to the public and agency personnel. (b.) No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. 1.603-3 Appointment. a) Contracting officers shall be appointed in writing on an SF 1402, Certificate of Appointment, which shall state any limitations on the scope of authority to be exercised, other than limitations contained in applicable law or regulation. Appointing officials shall maintain files containing copies of all appointments that have not been terminated. (b.) Agency heads are encouraged to delegate micro-purchase authority to individuals who are employees of an executive agency or members of the Armed Forces of the United States who will be using the supplies or services being purchased. Individuals delegated this authority are not required to be appointed on an SF 1402, but shall be appointed in writing in accordance with agency procedures. 13.303-3(a)(4) (4) Individuals authorized to purchase under the BPA. A statement that a list of individuals authorized to purchase under the BPA, identified either by title of position or by name of individual, organizational component, and the dollar limitation per purchase for each position title or individual shall be furnished to the supplier by the contracting officer. Summary Thoughts: 1. A CO is the person authorized to enter into a contract. 2. A CO?s authority is limited to that delegated to them. 3. COs must be appointed in writing on an SF 1402. 4. No appointment is required if the individual?s authority is limited to micro-purchases.

...and that is all I needed to know. Thanks Vern! And thanks everyone for commenting.

Vern - Regarding your response to my first question, if I am to follow the "format" in 6.303-2 as I understand it, then how do you explain 6.303-2(a)(1), which says "Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a ?Justification for other than full and open competition.? Emphasis added. I know it doesn't explicity call it a title. I understand there is a clear difference between sole source acquisitions and those where I am limiting the competition; and not necessarily to a single source. I also understand Part 6 doesn't apply to Part 13; even though there are numerous things I must do that reference areas of Part 6. Just curious because I can't say that I have seen a justification in my office for a commercial item with the title "Sole Source Justification" or "Sole Source Justification and Approval." And, our office primarily does commercial item acquisitions. I am not saying one is right and one is wrong, just trying to figure this out. Regarding your response to my second question, I have only seen in my office justifications called "JOFOCs" that cite as the authority 6.302-1. I have only seen, and also prepared these justifications over the SAT, and when limiting the competition to a single source. Is calling it a JOFOC and citing 6.302-1 necessarily wrong? I much rather do something right, or fix something that I have done wrong, as early on in my career as possible, then continue down a path of, "well, that's how we have always done it." Thanks for confirming my thoughts on question 3. Carl - I did not specify simply because I took it to be implied that the scenario had to at least be over the MPT, as I would not have used Part 8.4 procedures had it been under. Either way, sorry for that. I have always titled the document as an LSJ whether above the SAT, or between the MPT and the SAT. Suppose that is another reason why I didn't specify dollar amount. I do agree with the between the MPT and the SAT, and over the SAT response. Thank you. Side note: I did find a sample justification, which was called a JOFOC, that cited a few examples of the authority: http://www.psc.gov/directory/jofoctemplate.pdf. Reference Item #4. P.S. Sorry if anyone works here. Was the only sample I found that included references to my topic.

General Scenario for FAR Subpart 13.5: I have an aquisition to procure a particular commercial item supply or service. Through market research, I determine that the supply or service is only available from one source at a estimated cost of approximately $5 million. In reading Subpart 13.501(a)(1), I understand, to a point, Keeping that in mind, I also understand that I must: A few question: 1. If I am procuring a supply item using the scenario above, then regardless of whether the item is brand name or not, the "justification" shall be identified as a "Justification for other than full and open competition." Not Sole Source Justification right.... (See FAR Subpart 6.303-2(a)(1)) 2. Same scenario above, what do I cite as the authority? I understand FAR Subpart 13.501(a)(1)(ii) tells me to modify my justification "to reflect an acquisition under the authority of the test program for commercial items ...." However, what is the actual authority I cite? Do I write something similar to "this acquisition is under the authority of the test program as outlined in FAR Subpart 13.5," then include whether it is "section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996" or the "authority of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (41 U.S.C. 428a)?" Would it be wrong to cite as the authority 41 U.S.C. 253( c)(1) - 6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements? 3. [Not using the scenario above] What if I procured a brand name supply item under FAR Subpart 8.405-6. Would the justification then be called a Limited Source Justification? Things that make me go hmmmmmm....