Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dtes

  • Rank
    New Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Change vs New Work

    I concur that it's undoubtably new work rather than a variation in quantity. That said the work could still be added to the contract (using 52.243-5 or supplemental agreement) provided its in scope. GAO's opinion regarding scope is: As a general rule of thumb you can consider the price change that you expect to result from the change. If it's marginal (~10%) it's probably in scope; but, if it's significant re-compete.
  2. Given the broad impact GAO?s decision here, the strange timing of it (Why now? Doesn?t the fact pattern here occur 10,000+ times/year?), and GAO?s decision to interpret the FAR?s language so narrowly. I wonder if GAO believes its closing a ?hole? in procurement. That is: is it suggesting to the FAR Council that it change something about the FAR; or, for Congress to change CICA as it relates to 52.217-8?
  3. Suppose that an office has a: (1) requirement for a non-commercial item(s); (2) solid estimate of $90K prior to publishing it; (3) publishes the requirement utilizing Part 13 procedures. In the event that the responses that are received exceed the SAT ($100K in this case) is there authoritative guidance directing the office to either: (i) amend the Solicitation to make it an RFP, et cetera; or (ii) award a purchase order (still) utilizing SAP? Thus far, my search hasn't produced a definite conclusion. FAR 13.003(a) suggests a hard-line "Yes/No" regarding SAP (path i); however, 13.003( & © suggest an ex ante standard is appropriate where it utilized the "anticipated" language (path ii). GAO has sustained two protests (see B-400746, B-400747, B-400750, B-400751, B-400752, B-400785 and B-299044) where the record indicated that the agencies didn't have a (reasonable) basis to conclude that the (ex ante) estimates were below the SAT; however, I haven't discovered a decision where GAO has sustained a protest where the (ex ante) estimate was reasonable. I'll also note that DAU's Ask a Professor contemplates the reverse (solicit using RFP then awarding using SAP) (here) and reasons that it's acceptable: I think a procurement official could conclude that either path i, or ii is reasonable. Is a member aware of an authoritative decision regarding the issue? Or, in the alternative, an irrefutable argument for i, or ii?