napolik

In interpreting the prescriptions at FAR 52.219-1 and -2, I think that a supply contract is "performed" at the place of delivery--not where manufacturing and/or production take place. The prescriptions for FAR 52.219-1 and -2 assume that the CO will know where the contract will be performed when creating a solicitation. The CO is not likely to know where the supplies will be manufactured or produced at this point (unless the solicitation specified a place of manufacture, which would be unusual), so it wouldn't make sense to interpret "performed" as "manufactured and/or produced." However, the CO will know where the supplies need to be delivered.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

napolik,

Great post. You convinced me by pointing out the prescription for FAR 52.219-1. Would you, then, agree with the following?

1. If supplies are to be delivered or services are to be performed inside the United States and its outlying areas, all of FAR Part 19 applies.

2. If supplies are to be delivered or services are to be performed outside the United States and its outlying areas, only FAR Subpart 19.6 applies.

"Yes" to 1. "Yes" to services for 2. "Maybe" to supplies for 2.

I am uncertain about supplies produced in the US for delivery overseas. Certainly it would be nice and easy if one could conclude that the final delivery destination set out in the contract is determinative. In his motion to dismiss, the DoDEA attorney argues FAR Subpart 19.5 does not apply because the final destination for supplies is Okinawa, Japan. (It is worth noting that both of the protested solicitations were issued by a contracting activity located in Guam, one of the territories identified as an "outlying area".)

The FAR uses the term "performed" (e.g. see the prescriptions for 52.219- 1 and - 2). Does "performance" encompass the manufacture or production in the US and delivery overseas? If so, is "performance" outside the United States and its outlying areas if supplies produced in the US are delivered outside the United States and its outlying areas?

It probably is. Chances are, the word "performed" means the destination where the supplies are delivered or the services rendered.

What do you think? Why?

The second question is much more interesting. Must a CO comply with FAR Subpart 19.5 when acquiring supplies and services for use outside the U.S. and its outlying areas when performance must occur outside the U.S. and its outlying areas? In other words, if there are two responsible small businesses who can do the work and are willing to compete, must the CO set the procurement aside?

I would be very interested in seeing opinions about the answer to that question. Keep in mind that if the acquisition is set aside for small businesses, foreign firms cannot compete unless they have a facility in the U.S. or make a significant contribution to the U.S. economy, since they cannot be small businesses.

I have searched to obtain a definitive interpretation of the words at 19.000( ''in the United States or its outlying areas''. I have been unable to locate any GAO or court decision on the meaning of the words. However, I infer that the term ''in the United States or its outlying areas'' means where the contract will be performed, not the location of the contracting office and that FAR 19.5 does not apply to contracts performed outside the US or its outlying areas. I base my inference on my reading of FAR and DFARS passages containing the term, on FAR the direction contained in FAR 19.601(e) and on a 2007 Motion to Dismiss filed by a DoD agency to the GAO against a protest citing FAR 19.000(.

The term ''in the United States or its outlying areas'' appears nearly 30 times in the FAR and the DFARS. The more pertinent passages prescribe usage of provisions and clauses that apply FAR 19. FAR 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, is to be used in solicitations exceeding the micro-purchase threshold when the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas. FAR 52.219-2, Equal Low Bids, is to be used in solicitations when the contract will be performed in the United States or its outlying areas. FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns is to be used in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold unless (1) a personal services contract is contemplated (see 37.104); or (2) the contract, together with all of its subcontracts, will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas. FAR 19.1202-2 requires evaluation of the extent of participation of SDB concerns in contract performance except for contract actions that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas.

The inclusions and exclusions of SB program requirements I cite above are based upon the location of contract performance. The provisions and the rule apply to contracts performed in the US.

FAR 19.601(e) requires contracting officers, including those located overseas, to comply with Subpart 19.6 for U.S. small business concerns. Why would this direction be included if there was not an assumption that worked performed overseas was not covered by the FAR 19 programs?

In addition to looking in the FAR, I searched for any GAO decisions or court cases defining the term ''in the United States or its outlying areas''. I located only a motion to dismiss filed with GAO by the DoD Educational Activity (DoDEA) in November 2007 against two protests of the FitNet Purchasing Alliance. See it here: <a href="http://"http://www.fpaportal.org/FPA/PressDocs/Request_for_dismissal_DOD.pdf."" target="_blank">http://www.fpaportal.org/FPA/PressDocs/Request_for_dismissal_DOD.pdf.

://http://www.fpaportal.org/FPA/PressD...="3"]</a>The DoDEA sought proposals for gym lockers and for clothing lockers to be delivered to Japan. FitNet argued that the GAO must address the legality of the "foreign exemption" at FAR 19.000(. One of the two arguments presented by the DoDEA attorney stems from the "plain meaning" of the regulation at 19.000(. The attorney argues that FAR 19, except for FAR 19.6, does not apply to the DoDEA procurement as Japan is not in the US or its outlying areas. The prescriptions and requirement cited above seem to be consistent with the plain meaning of 19.000(.

I cannot locate any GAO decision on the protests, so I assume they were dismissed. Nor can I find a GAO dismissal notice.

As may be seen above, the FAR prescribes provisions and requires an evaluation of SDB performance based upon the location of contract performance. Why would you not include the provisions at FAR 52.219-1 or -2 in procurements performed outside the US and outlying areas if they could be set aside?

In addition FAR 19.601(e) requires contracting officers, including those located overseas, to comply with Subpart 19.6 for U.S. small business concerns.

Given the facts that the prescriptions and the requirement exclude overseas performance, and that FAR 19.601(e) specifically applies overseas, I conclude that contracts performed overseas are not covered by FAR 19.5.

Then, there is the issue of the meaning of the term "performance". In my view, services are "performed". Thus, services performed overseas are not covered by FAR 19.5. But, supplies are produced or manufactured. If DLA contracts for MREs to be delivered in the US and to be transshipped overseas, I believe FAR 19.5 would apply since there are US producers of MREs who manufacture them in the US. After reading his motion to dismiss the FitNet protests, I believe the DoDEA attorney would not agree with me.

You may see more information pertinent to the FitNet protest at these sites:

http://www.fpaportal.org/FPA/PressDocs/Espinosa_GAO_Protest_Against_FAR_Exemptions.pdf

http://www.fpaportal.org/FPA/PressDocs/FitNet_Objection_to_Dismiss_B-310699_and_B-310-730.pdf

http://www.fpaportal.org/FPA/PressDocs/Ltr_to_Cong_Towns-GAO_Request.pdf

FAR 19.000 ( says this: "This part, except for Subpart 19.6, applies only in the United States or its outlying areas. Subpart 19.6 applies worldwide." The definition of "outlying areas" set out in FAR Part 2 encompasses specific territories, commonwealths and minor outlying islands. If the overseas performance is outside the "outlying areas", I believe 19.5 does not apply.

Regarding competition for supplies, it seems to me that if the supplies are manufactured in the US or "outlying areas", then the competition is subject to the set aside rule.

BTW, when I worked overseas, my contracting activity's mission excluded contracting in the US. I cannot remember if the words "outlying areas" appeared in the exclusions contained in our mission description. If the supply was to be obtained from a stateside source, a stateside contracting office handled it. That office complied with FAR 19.5.

FAR Part 19, 19.000 ( B ) states that "This part, except for subpart 19.6, applies only in the United States or its outlying areas" Our Small Business advisor insists that we complete a DD 2579 for acquisitions in foreign country, because the contracting office is located in the United States. We support many overseas missions, and often have to buy supplies and services in foreign countries. Is it required that we consider US Small Businesses when the mission dictates that we acquire supplies and services in foreign countries, if the contracting office is located in the US?

A few thoughts. First, you must consider all US firms - large or small - responding to your solicitations. The fact that a US firm responds to a solicitation does not mean that it is entitled to award. There could be responsibility issues such as licenses to do work in the foreign country. However, COC procedures do apply for small businesses. Second, you do not have a blanket "overseas" exception from the publicizing requirements of FAR Subpart 5.2. Third, you could have supplies furnished from the US for delivery overseas. In this case, the SB advisor could set the actions aside.

I would let the SB advisor see the actions. If the work is for services or supplies that can be performed or produced only overseas, I would object to any effort to set these procurements aside.

Situation 2: The above person has suddenly changed course to a well established and long held ANGENCY procedure that a vendor can be granted a facility clearance after award to the opposite "... that a facility clearance cannot be granted until a contract has been awarded." When we solicit for a new action that requires a DD 254 (and is clearly stated in the RFP) we usually get several proposals from companies that do not have a facility clearance. We always state in Section M of the RFP that all interested parties should have the ability to fulfill this requirement in XX number of months before being allowed to begin work in any classified part of the resultant contract. Now the Head, Information Security/Assistant Security Manager will not allow a contract to be awarded until the facility clearance is granted. It is my opinion that this is going to restrict competition...are we to state that ONLY vendors with approved facility clearance will be evaluated for award? Please render your thoughts.

Take a look at this decision B-297825, Allied Protection Services, Inc., March 23, 2006. You can see it here:

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297825.htm

Here is an extract:

Quote

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires that agencies specify their needs and solicit offers in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition, so that all responsible sources are permitted to compete. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2305(a)(1)(A)(i) (2000). The determination of a contracting agency's needs and the best method for accommodating them is a matter primarily within the agency's discretion. Tucson Mobilephone, Inc., B- 250389, Jan. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 79 at 2, recon. denied, B-250389.2, June 21, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 472. Where a requirement relates to national defense or human safety, as here, an agency has the discretion to define solicitation requirements to achieve not just reasonable results, but the highest level of reliability and effectiveness. Caswell Int'l Corp., B-278103, Dec. 29, 1997, 98-1 CPD para. 6 at 2; Industrial Maint. Servs., Inc., B-261671 et al., Oct. 3, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 157 at 2. Generally, the fact that a requirement may be burdensome or even impossible for a particular firm to meet does not make it objectionable if the requirement properly reflects the agency's needs. Computer Maint. Operations Servs., B-255530, Feb. 23, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 170 at 2.

Unquote

Notice the last sentence. If you have a rational basis for requiring that the contractor possess a clearance at the time it submits its proposal, you will be OK. The Allied Protection decision sets out the agency's rationale for requiring the contractor to possess a clearance at the time of proposal submission.

Gov't Contracting Professionals-

Can you assist in identifying good publications on subject? NCMA has a number of products from CCH. Looking for STRAIGHT-Forward, "in laymen's terms" type educational/reference materials that work with professionals not well-versed in the FAR.

thanks to all!

See here: http://www.wifcon.com/anal/RecommendedReading.pdf

I am a contractor.

The General Instructions of FAR Table 15.2 require that the first page of your pricing proposal include "Proposed cost; profit or fee; and total"

On a FFP ID/IQ contract, what do I use as the basis for that amount - the minimum order quantity, or the maximum?

I would ask the contracting officer what he or she expects.

In my opinion, you should use the maximum "contract" amount. The minimum or maximum "order" amounts appear in the FAR clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations (Oct 1995). That clause deals with individual orders, not with the maximum contract amount.

Oftentimes, the maximum contract amount is derived by 1) multiplying the line item unit price or cost by the line item estimated quantity to arrive at a line item subtotal, then 2) summing the line item subtotals. If there are option periods, do this for the base period and option periods, then sum the subtotals for each period.

Napolik: Thanks for the link!

You need to thank Sig. Antonio for the link. He stores it.

Agency heads and a "relatively small number of high level officials" including heads of contracting activities are "designated contracting officers solely by virtue of their positions," FAR 1.601. There is brief mention of this in 1 No. 5 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ? 38, May, 1987, PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS: YOU NEED A PROGRAM TO TELL THE PLAYERS, by Ralph C. Nash and John Cibinic. But it would be great to find more discussion on this issue.

I have a vague recollection that there was a wifcon thread some years ago on whether a Secretary of a department could sign a contract as a contracting officer. If anyone finds it, please post the link to it here.

http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum607.htm

<br />Many companies have standard terms in their sales contracts that limit their liability for damages. Some limits are expressed as a multiple of the contract value; some have a fixed cap such as $1 million. In a commercial setting, this can be rejected completely by the buyer, or it can be negotiated.<br /><br />Question: is there any law or regulation that prohibits the government from agreeing to a cap on a contractor's liability? I'm not looking for advice on how to set a cap, when it might be appropriate, or the wisdom of doing it. I just want to know if it can be negotiated, or whether there is a prohibition on it; perhaps something like the ADA preventing the government from agreeing to indemnify a contractor.<br />

Note that standard FAR terms and conditions for commercial items relieves the contractor of liability. See paragraph (p) from 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items (Jun 2010):

Quote

(p) Limitation of liability. Except as otherwise provided by an express warranty, the Contractor will not be liable to the Government for consequential damages resulting from any defect or deficiencies in accepted items.

Unquote

Any authority on point (re: removing 52.232-18 once funds made available)?

Let's look at the clause:

Quote

Availability of Funds (Apr 1984) Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government's obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer.

Unquote

The last sentence obligates the contracting officer to notify the contractor in writing when the funds are made available. It does not say that the contracting officer must provide written notice and remove the clause from the contract.

As the contract consists of the basic contract and all modifcations, a mod providing the funds anticipated by the clause provides the money and notifies DFAS that the monies are obligated.

I have never encountered that problem with DFAS when using the availability of funds clause. Perhaps you should speak to a supervisor at DFAS.

I am in discussions with my CO who wants to do a competition related to Part 15 and I want to do a "streamlined acquistion" for a commerical item, based on the market survey responses..... can anyone provide feedback... Its a commerical item, total is about 1 MIL , there is some testing involve before award which will take about 30 days and he feels like that will preclude us from streamlining the competition. Basically my RFQ will include various attachments like the testing info, LPTA info, specification of product , compliance matrix and delivery locations. Any feedback

I am not sure why your contracting officer believes that preaward testing precludes use of FAR Part 12 / 13.5. Paragraph (d) of 52.212-1 anticipates the testing:

Quote

(d) Product samples. When required by the solicitation, product samples shall be submitted at or prior to the time specified for receipt of offers. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, these samples shall be submitted at no expense to the Government, and returned at the sender's request and expense, unless they are destroyed during preaward testing.

Unquote

See also FAR 12.602(. It refers to use of product samples in evaluation of offers:

Quote

A technical evaluation would normally include examination of such things as product literature, product samples (if requested), technical features and warranty provisions.

Unquote.

This one caught me by surprise. I am still searching for when the small business contracting subtitle was added but I believe it was done in the Senate during the last 10 days--in a hurry. Without looking at it closely, I assume it was a wishlist of items.

Because of politics, this bill was moving quickly and was sure to pass. As a result, it was decorated with various items. The defense authorization bill, where it would normally end up, has been delayed and/or endangered because of politics.

What's next - reversing the Delex decision?

k

Napolik,

Often large numbers of offers just improves the process of competition but not the substance. There's a saying you might have heard before that 30 proposals instead of 3 isn't ten times as good. What DoD should be concerned with is getting enough offers so that the CO and others can concentrate on establishing a really good deal. That includes time to analyze each offer, determine the relative benefits of each, and bargain for the best possible arrangement.

I think the solution is training CO's to do a better job and have severe repurcussions for those that don't.

All I can say is "I report, you decide"!

Question:

Is there any restriction from providing a notice of award while waiting for funds?

The situation is, an RFQ was issued for one (1) Admin support position under part 12 and will be evaluated using LPTA procedures. Funds are not currently available (subject to availability of funds) but when received at the end of the year (fall out money) award will be made.

Although an award decision has been made, the CO will not allow release of the award decision until funds have been obligated and the award is processed. Contractors who submitted quotes are now asking for the release of the apparent successful offeror so they can begin to process of preparing their candidate to transition into the position on 01 Oct 2010.

I reviewed FAR part 5 and 12 and can find nothing that prohibits the release of this information.

I see no problem with the release of the award information so long as it is noted that funds have not been obligated and performance will not commence until reciept of funds and award of the contract.

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.

You may be able to make an award subject to the availability of funds. See FAR 32.703-2 -- Contracts Conditioned Upon Availability of Funds, to determine if it fits your circumstances.

Specifically with regard to GSA FSS.........

The debate my colleagues and I have is that while a "BPA" may used be to place an "ID/IQ" action for use under GSA, a BPA is an agreement, not a contract and not an order, and is non-binding.

So for those of us with little professional imagination and ingenuity....aside from a BPA (which is an agreement) is there a way (under the GSA FSS) to place a binding ID/IQ "order/contract/instrument" (which has a maximum ceiling, a minimum guarantee, a general statement of work, and rate information) which allows for the issuance of subsequent defined task orders that will require defined statements of work and task order cost proposals?

No. See the GSA Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work (SOW): http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100005.

"A firm-fixed price order shall be requested, unless the ordering activity makes a determination that it is not possible at the time of placing the order to estimate accurately the extent or duration of the work, or to anticipate cost with any reasonable degree of confidence. When such a determination is made, a labor-hour or time-and-materials quotation may be requested. The firm-fixed price of the order should also include any travel costs or other direct charges related to performance of the services ordered, unless the order provides for reimbursement of travel costs at the rates provided in the Federal Travel or Joint Travel Regulations. A ceiling price must be established for labor-hour and time-and-materials orders."

While the link also contains a discussion of issuing BPAs, there is no discussion of issuing IDIQs.

Hi, I have a small business with a 5 year FFP task order with a government customer that is set to run only a few more months. My customer wants to extend the TO for 6 months past the 5 year mark which is good news but they also want to convert the last 6 months to CPFF. I was wondering if anyone ever heard of this type of thing - that is changing the contract type with only 6 months left on a task order and an extension at that. We won this bidding it as FFP and now that we have a great team onboard and there is actually less risk as far as finding the right people etc they want to change the contract type. This means a lot more accounting headaches etc etc.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

By FFP, I assume you mean FFP LOE or labor hour / time and material. Otherwise, the contracting officer may have lost his or her mind.

While there is a big push in government - particularly in DoD - to convert FFP LOE and labor hour / time and material contracts and orders to firm fixed price or cost reimbursement, I do not understand why your customer wishes to change contract type for 6 months. Talk to the contracting officer and suggest that he or she change contract type in the next competition, not in the last six months of your contract. If the contracting officer refuses to budge, you have a decision to make.

Since the change in task order type will be accomplished bilaterally, you must agree to it. You must decide if your pain of converting to cost reimbursement is greater or less than the pain your customer will feel and will remember in a subsequent source selection involving your firm.

That's just it, the PGI should go by what the DFARS states when it says, "As many schedule contractors as practicable". It should be consistent... and not try to put in additional requirements.

DoD is lookng for the substance of competition, not merely the process of competiton.

See this from a press release just issued by Ashton Carter

Quote

Last year, the Pentagon awarded $55 billion in contracts that were supposed to be competitive but for which only one bid was received, usually from an incumbent contractor. Yet simple changes in how we structure evaluations and work with industry have been shown to reduce by 50% the incidence of single bids by incumbents. Competition is not always available, but the evidence is clear that the government is not availing itself of all possible competitive situations.

Unquote

Posting on e-Buy will improve the likelihood of receiving competition. That's the thought.

Situation: Multiple award IDIQs awarded as T&M contracts. All task orders that require recurring services are being converted to CPFF upon original POP end. RFPs have been prepared stating change to CPFF. Proposals coming in from IDIQ holders using unburdened rates but the subcontractors rates are loaded. KO has determined that the cost realism analysis will be done for the prime contractor's costs but not the sub's.

Question: Is this OK?

In another thread, I asked this question:

Quote

I am attempting to convert contract types from T&M and FFP LOE to FFP or cost reimbursement. My client offers the opinion that a change of contract type is within the scope of the original competition. Thus, the shift in contract type can be accomplished without a new competition. After re-reading this post -http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=65 - and the GAO decisions in DOR Biodefense Inc. and Emergent BioSolutions - B-296358.3 and B-296358.4, I believe that the shift in contract type is outside the scope of the competition, but I am not certain.

Does anyone have any case law to support or refute my belief?

Unquote

Two weeks later, after "consulting" with GAO, I posted this:

Quote

The GAO "informal" opinion is that a shift in contract type is outside the scope of the competition. Since GAO no longer issues "advance opinions" on protest issues, only appropriations issues, we will not receive a definitive opinion until GAO receives and decides a protest on this point.

Unquote

Pleaase see this thread: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=477.

@napolik

As far as the PGI goes, it states that eBuy, "is one medium for providing fair notice to all contractors as required by DFARS 208.405-70?(2)". Again, I do not see that as a mandate.

What other medium would you propose to reach "all" contractors?

Need assistance - have not come across this before. We have a need to procure custom painting original work over $25,000. We are not sure how to compete this requirement as we know this would not be a sole source. It is unique as the artist/company that receives the award will have to paint original subjects that are unique to the customer. It would not be likely that there would be artists out on FedBizOpps looking for work or even CCR registered. Any suggestions/help is greatly appreciated.

First, do a little market research. Post something on FEDBIZOPPS. Use NAICS 711510. While you probably won't receive an expression of interest from a Fiorentine firm, you probably will get some from around the US.

After your market research, issue a solicitation under FAR 13 or 13.5. Use price, experience and past performance as your evaluation factors.

FYI, here is a notice from a 3 year old FEDBIZOPPS:

Quote

COMMISIONED OIL PORTRAIT OF DEPARTMENT HEAD - OFFICAL WALL PORTRAIT DOJ-FAS-7-01-0004 090707 09222007 John Schrecengost, Contracting officer, Phone 202-616-3908, Fax 202-307-1915, Email john.schrecengost@usdoj.gov This is a notice of intent to award a sole source purchase order to PORTRAIT S INC, d.b.a., PORTRAITS SOUTH, of Raleigh, North Carolina. It is customary and permissible for the Attorney General to select the artist; Mr. Dean L. Paules has beed selected as the offical portrait artist. The Department of Justice has a need for the services a professional artist to prepare a 3/4 length official government portrait of the Attorney General. The finished portrait shall be displayed within the Department of Justice for inclusion in the Department's Official Portrait Collection of Past Attorneys General. This action is set aside for small business. The North American Industrial Classification Code System (NAICS) code for this pending action is 711510. For this NAICS, the small business size standard is $6.5 million. Only responses received by 09/07/2007, as a result of this notice of intent, shall be considered solely for the purpose of determining whether to conduct a competitive procurement. Responses will not be considered as either proposals or bids. A determination by the Government not to open this requirement to competition, based upon the written responses to this notice, is solely within the discretion of the Government. Inquiries shall be faxed to the attention of John Schrecengost, DOJ/JMD/FASS/RPMS, on 202.307.1915. [Please refer to Numbered Note "22"]

Unquote

Do you have a reference for that requirement? I currently work for GSA and that information would be helpful. Thanks.

The DOD FAR Supplement:

208.405-70 Additional ordering procedures.

• (a) This subsection--
  
  • (1) Implements Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107) for the acquisition of services, and establishes similar policy for the acquisition of supplies;
    (2) Applies to orders for supplies or services under Federal Supply Schedules, including orders under blanket purchase agreements established under Federal Supply Schedules; and
    (3) Also applies to orders placed by non-DoD agencies on behalf of DoD.
    

( Each order exceeding $100,000 shall be placed on a competitive basis in accordance with paragraph © of this subsection, unless this requirement is waived on the basis of a justification that is prepared and approved in accordance with FAR 8.405-6 and includes a written determination that--

• (1) A statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source; or
  (2) One of the circumstances described at FAR 16.505((2)(i) through (iii) applies to the order. Follow the procedures at PGI 216.505-70 if FAR 16.505((2)(ii) or (iii) is deemed to apply.
  

© An order exceeding $100,000 is placed on a competitive basis only if the contracting officer provides a fair notice of the intent to make the purchase, including a description of the supplies to be delivered or the services to be performed and the basis upon which the contracting officer will make the selection, to--

• (1) As many schedule contractors as practicable, consistent with market research appropriate to the circumstances, to reasonably ensure that offers will be received from at least three contractors that can fulfill the requirements, and the contracting officer--
  
  • (i)(A) Receives offers from at least three contractors that can fulfill the requirements; or
    ( Determines in writing that no additional contractors that can fulfill the requirements could be identified despite reasonable efforts to do so (documentation should clearly explain efforts made to obtain offers from at least three contractors); and
    (ii) Ensures all offers received are fairly considered; or
    

(2) All contractors offering the required supplies or services under the applicable multiple award schedule, and affords all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered.

(d) See PGI 208.405-70 for additional information regarding fair notice to contractors and requirements relating to the establishment of blanket purchase agreements under Federal Supply Schedules.

PGI 208.4--FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES

PGI 208.405-70 Additional ordering procedures.

• (1) Posting of a request for quotations on the General Services Administration's electronic quote system, "e-Buy", (<A href="

• (i) Follows the procedures in DFARS 208.405-70( and ©; and
  (ii)(A) For a single BPA, defines the individual tasks to be performed; or
  
  • ( For multiple BPAs, forwards the statement of work and the selection criteria to all multiple BPA holders before placing orders.
    

Do you have a reference for that requirement? I currently work for GSA and that information would be helpful. Thanks.

The DOD FAR Supplement:

208.405-70 Additional ordering procedures.

• (a) This subsection--
  
  • (1) Implements Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. 107-107) for the acquisition of services, and establishes similar policy for the acquisition of supplies;
    (2) Applies to orders for supplies or services under Federal Supply Schedules, including orders under blanket purchase agreements established under Federal Supply Schedules; and
    (3) Also applies to orders placed by non-DoD agencies on behalf of DoD.
    

( Each order exceeding $100,000 shall be placed on a competitive basis in accordance with paragraph © of this subsection, unless this requirement is waived on the basis of a justification that is prepared and approved in accordance with FAR 8.405-6 and includes a written determination that--

• (1) A statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source; or
  (2) One of the circumstances described at FAR 16.505((2)(i) through (iii) applies to the order. Follow the procedures at PGI 216.505-70 if FAR 16.505((2)(ii) or (iii) is deemed to apply.
  

© An order exceeding $100,000 is placed on a competitive basis only if the contracting officer provides a fair notice of the intent to make the purchase, including a description of the supplies to be delivered or the services to be performed and the basis upon which the contracting officer will make the selection, to--

• (1) As many schedule contractors as practicable, consistent with market research appropriate to the circumstances, to reasonably ensure that offers will be received from at least three contractors that can fulfill the requirements, and the contracting officer--
  
  • (i)(A) Receives offers from at least three contractors that can fulfill the requirements; or
    ( Determines in writing that no additional contractors that can fulfill the requirements could be identified despite reasonable efforts to do so (documentation should clearly explain efforts made to obtain offers from at least three contractors); and
    (ii) Ensures all offers received are fairly considered; or
    

(2) All contractors offering the required supplies or services under the applicable multiple award schedule, and affords all contractors responding to the notice a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered.

(d) See PGI 208.405-70 for additional information regarding fair notice to contractors and requirements relating to the establishment of blanket purchase agreements under Federal Supply Schedules.

PGI 208.4--FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES

PGI 208.405-70 Additional ordering procedures.

• (1) Posting of a request for quotations on the General Services Administration's electronic quote system, "e-Buy", (<A href="

• (i) Follows the procedures in DFARS 208.405-70( and ©; and
  (ii)(A) For a single BPA, defines the individual tasks to be performed; or
  
  • ( For multiple BPAs, forwards the statement of work and the selection criteria to all multiple BPA holders before placing orders.
    

As a general rule, unless you have an IDIQ, requirements, or other indefinite quantity type contract, adding additional supply quantities is not going to be in scope.

With an ID contract, you can have scope issues with additional quantities:

"An order in excess of the maximum quantity stated in the contract would be outside the scope of the contract. Such an order would result in a contract materially different from that for which the original competition was held and, absent a valid sole-source determination, would be subject to CICA requirements for competition." See Liebert Corp., B-232234.5, Apr. 29, 1991, 91-1 CPD.