Mike_wolff Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 My understanding is that generally for domestic federal procurements one is not allowed to restrict competition to only "local" firms, for example, only firms located in a particular city or state, because such a requirement would be unduly restrictive of competition, and IAW FAR 11.002(a)(1)(ii) you can only include "restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law." Is anyone aware of any case law which specifically says that limiting competition to local firms is unduly restrictive? Thanks in advance! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_a Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Mike, I'm not sure if you were talking about just normal purchases but if it is a declared emergency you can set aside for local companies: 26.202-1 Local area set-aside. The contracting officer may set aside solicitations to allow only local firms within a specific geographic area to compete (see 6.208). (a) The contracting officer, in consultation with the requirements office, shall define the specific geographic area for the local set-aside. ( A major disaster or emergency area may span counties in several contiguous States. The set-aside area need not include all the counties in the declared disaster/emergency area(s), but cannot go outside it. (c ) The contracting officer shall also determine whether a local area set-aside should be further restricted to small business concerns in the set-aside area (see Part 19). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_wolff Posted May 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Mike, I'm not sure if you were talking about just normal purchases but if it is a declared emergency you can set aside for local companies:26.202-1 Local area set-aside. The contracting officer may set aside solicitations to allow only local firms within a specific geographic area to compete (see 6.208). (a) The contracting officer, in consultation with the requirements office, shall define the specific geographic area for the local set-aside. ( A major disaster or emergency area may span counties in several contiguous States. The set-aside area need not include all the counties in the declared disaster/emergency area(s), but cannot go outside it. (c ) The contracting officer shall also determine whether a local area set-aside should be further restricted to small business concerns in the set-aside area (see Part 19). Thanks Jason - Sorry, I should have made that clear, I was talking about non-emergencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Geographical restrictions are not per se unduly restrictive and there is no general prohibition against them. See Washington Adventist Hospital, B-294371.3, 2005 CPD ? 18: An agency properly may restrict a procurement to offerors within a specified area if it shows that the restriction is reasonably necessary for the agency to meet its needs. Imperial 400 Motor Inn , B?227270, Aug.21, 1987, 87?2 CPD 192. See also 440 East 62nd Street Company, B-276787, 97-2 CPD ? 30: The determination of the proper scope of a geographical restriction is a matter of the agency's judgment, which we will review only in order to ensure that it has a reasonable basis. Canal Claiborne Ltd., B-244211, Sept. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD ? 266 at 2. See also CardioMetrix, B-250247, 92-2 CPD ? 414: We will review an agency's determination to impose a geographic restriction in order to assure that it has a reasonable basis. Blaine Hudson Printing, B?247004, Apr. 22, 1992, 92?1 CPD ? 380. Geographic restrictions are not unduly restrictive where they are reasonably necessary to meet the agency's minimum needs. Malco Plastics, B?219886, Dec. 23, 1985, 85?2 CPD ? 701. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_wolff Posted May 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 Thanks Vern! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 I seem to recall a Coast Guard case in Washington State where a geographic restriction was overturned as overly restrictive -- the Coast Guard required the successful contractor to be within __ miles, based on an emergency response time of __ minutes. But the GAO or whoheaver heard the case opined that the distance requirement was overly restrictive, while the response time requirement was reasonable. The contract was for some sort of emergency repair work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 Assuming that there is such a case -- so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 for Vern -- "so what?" I provided information that might be helpful to the original poster, suggesting that a preference for local firms might be styled using different words, such as a need for a response within a certain time limit. Does providing information that might be helpful to the original poster answer your "so what?" challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Yep, now that you've explained your purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts