Search the Community

Hi All I was told my a upper management Contracting Officer that I must fill out and have the 2689 approved prior to synopsis. I have always used a Sources Sought and/or RFI to gauge interest, then synopsis per the requirements of the FAR. I have never considered that there was an order in which these needed to be completed. I can not find a reference to this in the FAR or GSAM. Is there a FAR regulation that covers this or is it just good contracting practice. I'm good either way, but am concerned I have been doing it incorrectly for some time.

If I have a requirement that will ultimately need the contractor to have certain security clearances to receive the award, and I am conducting full and open competition, can my synopsis posting require potential offerors to submit their clearance information for verification, and then we only provide those offerors who met the clearance requirement to receive a copy of the solicitation? Does that still provide for full and open competition? My thought was that the FAR 6.101(a) requires us to "...promote and provide for full and open competition in SOLICITING offers and awarding Government contracts" (emphasis mine). Since a synopsis is not a solicitation, and is simply a notice of a forthcoming solicitation, I do not see how we are providing for full and open competition through the solicitation if we are only handing out the solicitation to the pre-approved offerors who responded to the synopsis and had their clearances verified. Yes, overall we have given everyone an opportunity to submit an offer if they meet the security requirements, however it required the synopsis for us to do so. I think we need to give everyone an opportunity through the solicitation only, without using the synopsis as a screening tool. Other pertinent info: The synopsis adequately describes the process for submitting the clearance verification request and being eligible to receive the solicitation. the nature of the required work allows a synopsis and solicitation to be publically posted without compromising national security, thus a J&A pursuant to FAR 6.302-6 was not pursued. In addition, this would mean that the FAR 5.102(a)(5) national security exception to making the solicitation available on the GPE could not be used as well. My proposed solution would be to post a synopsis that adequately describes what the solicitation procedures will be (i.e. once the solicitation is posted, you will need to submit clearance verification information, and if you meet the clearance requirements, you will be given further solicitation documentation to be able to submit an offer). Then the solicitation would be posted publically on the GPE, and it would require potential offerors to submit their clearance information for verification prior to them receiving certain documents that would allow them to propose. The outcome is the same as the previous paragraph, but this way the solicitation was publically posted and the solicitation in and of itself provided for full and open competition, as opposed to the synopsis and solicitation providing for full and open competition only when considered jointly.

Does sending an email to three vendors satisy the FAR posting requirements for a Task order that is between $15,000 and $25,000? The FAR Part states the following, " (2) For proposed contract actions expected to exceed $15,000, but not expected to exceed $25,000, by displaying in a public place, or by any appropriate electronic means, an unclassified notice of the solicitation or a copy of the solicitation satisfying the requirements of 5.207(c). " The FAR does not define "appropriate electronic means" in this Subpart nor does it define electronic means in FAR 2.1. Would email constitute as an "appropriate electronic means"? I looked up this term in a dictionary and the best definition I could find for electronic means is "computer". Thank You.

I have a services requirement for a lab study that is under tight time constraints. The lab study requires collection of soil samples prior to winter conditions. Before soil samples can be collected, there is various work that must be conducted in sequence. If we can set aside exclusively for small business we would prefer to do so, however, we anticipate it will take vendors 20-30 days to prepare a quote and we have not yet located any small business sources. We do not have enough time for a sources sought notice followed by a 30 day solicitation. We only have time for the 30 day solicitation. My thought is to issue two solicitations for the same requirement, one set aside for small business and the other full and open. In the FBO posting I would disclose that it is being solicited under both and I would indicate that if we receive adequate competition to justify the small business set-aside, the full and open would be cancelled. If we don't have enough small business sources, any offers from small business would be considered in response to the full and open solicitation. I've read through FAR parts 5,6,7 and 10 but haven't found anything regarding multiple solicitations, specifically whether it is permitted or not. My alternative is to dissolve the small business set-aside under 6.302-2 Unusual and Compelling Urgency but I would like to keep a set-aside on the table if possible. Pertinent information: Commercial, contract value with options anticipated to be over the SAT, would be issued as a RFQ, under $250K. Requirement cannot be delayed due to EPA requirements. Any quick answers would be greatly appreciated as I only have a couple days to make the decision. My supervisor says he would back the decision unless he is able to find verbiage that forbids it.

I am weighing the options for the recompete of a non-complex commercial service requirement subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA) with an estimated value of $4M. It will be a socioeconomic set-aside. Market Research has confirmed there are capable Contractors in the targeted socioeconomic set-aside and narrowed down the procurement strategy to either a Part 12, 13, or 15 acquisition (no GSA or Part 8 sources for that matter or internal IDIQ/Part 16 vehicles fit the scope). The Part 15 approach is not desired nor necessary based on these other available options. We are potentially leaning towards a Part 13 approach using Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) in accordance with (IAW) 13.5--Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items as opposed to a combined synopsis / solicitation procedure IAW with FAR Part 12.603 due to flexibility, benefit, and no need really for having to describe the relative importance of evaluation factors when SAP are followed (see FAR 12.602(a) for comparative difference refresh of evaluation factor differences if need be). My question concerns confusion between the promoting competition i.e. solicitation requirements of FAR 13.104 and the synopsis and posting requirements of FAR 13.105. FAR 13.104 only requires promotion of competition to maximum extent possible in consideration of the administrative cost of the purchase and states if using SAP and not providing notice via the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE i.e. FBO), maximum competition can ordinarily be obtained by soliciting quotations or offers from sources within the local trade area (requirement location is DC suburb so no shortage of available Contractors). FAR 13.104(b) also states “Unless the contract action requires synopsis pursuant to 5.101 and an exception under 5.202 is not applicable, consider solicitation of at least three sources to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable.” Is it not reasonable to interpret this as I could just identify three sources from Market Research to whom to send a solicitation (electronically) and not worry about the Publicizing Contract Actions requirements of FAR Part 5 (as this action would normally require synopsis pursuant to 5.101 and no exception under 5.202 is applicable)? But then I interpret 13.105(a) as stating the complete opposite --> “The contracting officer must comply with the public display and synopsis requirements of 5.101 and 5.203 unless an exception in 5.202 applies.” No exception from 5.202 applies to my requirement based on my analysis (really wish SAP was explicitly called out here but conversely then why does 13.104(b) say acceptable to solicit three sources to ordinarily obtain max practicable competition). FARTheLoveOfGod why does the FAR do this? Am I misinterpreting 13.104(b)? If I am, then what's the purpose of identifying and soliciting three sources using SAP and then having to post on FBO anyways...rhetorical question as I do not see a purpose. By no means am I trying to circumvent FAR requirements, rather I am just trying to understand and interpret them as written because I don’t see how the use of SAP would achieve the purposes of FAR Part 13 as iterated in FAR 13.002 (reduce admin costs, promote efficiency and economy, avoid unnecessary burdens, and like I said it will be a socioeconomic set-aside) when a notification to the GPE via FBO IAW FAR 5.101 and 5.203 per FAR 13.105 is required for this requirement and potentially result in an overwhelming number of responses. I see how the evaluation process is simplified from a quality aspect using SAP e.g. easier to evaluate responses, but how then would SAP be "simplified" from a quantity aspect concerning the potential burden of a potentially overwhelming number of responses due the to FBO posting requirement...seems counterintuitive to FAR 13.002 because if I synopsize then I'll basically have to send a subsequent solicitation to any vendor that expresses interest from a fairness aspect and then the procurement is potentially no longer "simplified" or "practicable". Furthermore, every labor category is basically subject to the SCA so the local Wage Determination sets a baseline for competitive pricing, and it is about a certainty that the FBO posting part will not result in some previously unknown vendor being able to provide ultra competitive pricing. In conclusion and FARTheLoveOfGod, is it permissible to just solicit at least three sources directly using SAP and not worry about the requirements of FAR 5.101 and 5.203 since no exceptions apply IAW 5.202 but since SAP are being utilized? I think the answer is yes. Hopefully, you understand from where my confusion above arises, and if you think I have misinterpreted, which probably means you disagree with my answer, then maybe we can agree that FAR 5.202 (the FBO exceptions), 13.104, and 13.105 could arguably stand some revisions / clarifications. Looking forward to your input.

Our office has a difference of opinion regarding the Sources Sought Notice/Synopsis that I am hoping this board can resolve. We understand that a Sources Sought notice also known as a Sources Sought Synopsis is used to gather information on potential offerors when a government intends to issue an award. The purpose of the Sources Sought notice is to increase competition and small business participation. The advanced notice, when posted on the GPE of a pending contract action, qualifies as a synopsis. Having said that, I have seen multiple FBO posting that call out a "Sources Sought / Presolicitation Notice" or "Combined Sources Sought / Solicitation Notice". I have also seen the Sources Sought referred to merely as a market research tool. As such, is a Sources Sought Notice/Synopsis also considered a Presolicitation Notice which would satisfy the posting requirements under FAR 5.204?