Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Here is the link to the new policy,

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/215_3.htm#215.371

Bottom line, if you have the solicitation out for less than 30 days, and receive only one offer, you cannot find it fair and reasonable based on the expectation of competition, in addition to a requirement to post for an additional 30 days after receiving only one offer.

What is puzzling is then reading the exceptions, 215.371-4, to having to resolicit for 30 days, if it is under SAT, or if it is over SAT and is a small business set aside, Hubzone, SDVOSB, or WOSB set aside then the resolicitation requirement doesn't apply.

Well in that case, the way I first read it, the resolicitation requirement would never apply unless it was a Large Business or 8(a) MATOC. Because there is no other way you can get around FAR 5.203© and the requirement to post for 30 days when it is over SAT.

So what purpose does the resolicitation requirement as currently implemented serve?

the only value I see is that you have to do a more thorough analysis to determine the price fair and reasonable now when you receive only one offer, regardless of whether the offer submitted in a perceived competitive environment or not.

But the resolicitation requirement and exceptions to it simply confuse me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose is to promote competition. (The requirement is under 215.371-2 Promote competition.)

FAR 5.203© begins, "Except for the acquisition of commercial items..."

Despite its exceptions, the resolicitation requirement is certainly applicable to many solicitations and, presumably, targets those where a problem was perceived.

There are two issues it seems to target (in the acquisitions to which it applies): (1) Contracting officers not complying with 5.203( B ), i.e. not establishing a solicitation response time that will afford potential offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond to each contract action for the acquisition of commercial items in an amount estimated to be greater than $25,000, and (2) requirements documents (intentionally or unintentionally) being written in a manner that does not promote competition .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Am I correct in my interpretation of this provision that if I have a Small Business Set Aside, Multiply Award (6 awardees) IDIQ that I am exempt from the resoliciting for 30 days? All competition requirements were met on the solicitation of the basic contracts therefore this requirement should have been satisfied for the duration of the IDIQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're asking whether the requirements of DFARS 215.371 apply to the issuance of orders under a multiple award IDIQ contract that was set aside for small business. Is that correct?

DFARS 215.371-4(a)(3) provides an exception for--

Small business set-asides under FAR subpart 19.5, set asides offered and accepted into the 8(a) Program under FAR subpart 19.8, or set-asides under the HUBZone Program (see FAR 19.1305©), the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program (see FAR 19.1405©), or the Women-Owned Small Business Program (see FAR 19.1505(d)).

So do the orders under a multiple award IDIQ contract that was set aside also fall under this exception? While I can't say that such an interpretation is correct or incorrect (the regulations don't say), I do think that it's reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at it in 2 ways. The first being that since this IDIQ is a 100% Small Business Set Aside suite that it falls under the exemption and the second way is that since this IDIQ was fully competed as a solicitation and 6 awards were made that it meets all competition requirments and is not subject to the DFARS provision at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the second way is that since this IDIQ was fully competed as a solicitation and 6 awards were made that it meets all competition requirments and is not subject to the DFARS provision at all.

That would be wrong. See DFARS 216.505-70. Stick with the first way you are looking at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...