Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'synopsizing'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • Whitcomb, Selinsky PC GovCON Law

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 1 result

  1. I'm a contracting officer currently working overseas in support of a declared contingency for the Department of Defense. We're having a spirited discussion in our office on synopsizing requirements. The most hotly debated topic is the requirement to synopsize through the GPE for requirements >$30k (micro-purchase threshold) when soliciting competition in the United States. FAR 13.106-1( c ) states that oral solicitations can be used when notice is not required under FAR 5.101 and the acquisition does not exceed the SAT ($1M for overseas declared contingency). But FAR 13.106-1( c ) also cautions that oral solicitations may not be practicable unless an exception under FAR 5.202 applies. An exception under FAR 5.202 does apply, but it's FAR 5.202( f ), which states synopsizing is not required when the proposed contract action is by the DoD, and only local sources will be solicited. This is the only exception that applies, and a U.S. based company cannot reasonably be considered a local source. FAR 5.101( a )( 1 ) states that synopsizing is required for actions expected to exceed $25k. FAR 5.101( a )( 2 ) outlines public display requirements for actions between $15k and $25k, but excepts display requirements for actions solicited using oral solicitations (FAR 5.101( a )( 2 )( ii )). The premise of the argument I'm hearing is that FAR 5.101( a )( 2 )( ii ) allows us to solicit companies in the U.S., provided the action is under the SAT, without the need to synopsize. I wholly disagree with this argument due to the fact that our synopsizing requirement falls under FAR 5.101( a )( 1 ) and not FAR 5.101( a )( 2 ). Therefore, any requirement greater than our micro-purchase threshold of $30k where non-local sources are being solicited must be synopsized to the GPE. On a similar note, we also had a spirited discussion on the applicable micro-purchase threshold in our environment. At one point, an argument was being made that the applicable micro-purchase depended on whether or not the acquisition was being awarded to a company inside or outside the U.S. ($20k inside the U.S. and $30k outside the U.S.). However, we all now generally agree that the applicable threshold is $30k, regardless of where the company is located because the purchase is "being made outside of the United States". Thoughts on the synopsizing requirements and feedback on the applicable micro-purchase threshold?
  • Create New...