Is Brand Name restriction on GSA competitive or non-competitive?

[NewbieFed]

FAR 6.102(d)(3) says use of GSA's MAS program is considered a competitive procedure (e.g. posting on GSA Ebuy and selecting vendors with GSA contracts).

However, I've read that the use of Brand Name Restrictions (BNR) is not competitive, and only Brand Name or Equal acquisitions are competitive. Using a BNR requires a Justification for other than full and open competition. The Buy American Act (BAA) requirements also require us to post a Brand Name or Equal requirement to allow full and open competition (instead of a BNR) if we are posting on FBO/SAM.gov. However, if GSA is available, the Trade Agreements Act usually override the BAA. 

So is the use of GSA still considered competitive even if we use a Brand Name restriction?

 

[JRT132]

I view this as other than full and open competition according to FAR 6.302-1(c) while using an authorized acquisition approach. This approach is consistent with FAR 6.301(e). 

[Vern Edwards]

So, do you want to know if FAR Part 6 applies to a brand name or equal order against a GSA MAS contract? If so, the answer is no. See FAR 8.405-6, Limiting sources.

[NewbieFed]

1 hour ago, JRT132 said:

I view this as other than full and open competition according to FAR 6.302-1(c) while using an authorized acquisition approach. This approach is consistent with FAR 6.301(e). 

Thanks. Does this mean it fits in a grey zone where it is both a competitive procedure but also not full and open competition?

[Don Mansfield]

2 hours ago, NewbieFed said:

So is the use of GSA still considered competitive even if we use a Brand Name restriction?

For what purpose are you trying to categorize the action as competitive or not?

[NewbieFed]

2 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

So, do you want to know if FAR Part 6 applies to a brand name or equal order against a GSA MAS contract? If so, the answer is no. See FAR 8.405-6, Limiting sources.

Far 8.405-6 Limiting Sources has its own version of Brand Name under section (b) and (b)(1) (b). I'm referring to the 8.405's brand name restriction.

(b)Items peculiar to one manufacturer. An item peculiar to one manufacturer can be a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer. A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer.

(b)(1) Brand name specifications shall not be used unless the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs.

 

Is using Brand Name restrictions with GSA under 8.405 still considered a competitive procedure, competitive + full and open, etc?

[NewbieFed]

Just now, Don Mansfield said:

For what purpose are you trying to categorize the action as competitive or not?

FPDS vs Buy American Act vs Trade Agreements Act, etc.

 

FPDS automatically categorizes GSA orders as full and open competition. But the FAR with the BAA/TAA seems to suggest GSA with Brand Name restrictions is NOT full and open competition.

[Vern Edwards]

5 minutes ago, NewbieFed said:

Is using Brand Name restrictions with GSA under 8.405 still considered a competitive procedure, competitive + full and open, etc?

It's considered what is𑁋a limitation on sources. FAR Part 6 does not apply to orders against GSA schedules, which means that FAR Part 6 terms and definitions do not apply. I can't help you with FPDS.

[formerfed]

FAR 8.404(a) says 

Quote

a)  General.  parts  13 (except  13.303-2(c)(3)),  14,  15, and  19 (except for the requirements at  19.102(b)(3) and  19.202-1(e)(1)(iii)) do not apply to BPAs or orders placed against Federal Supply Schedules contracts (but see  8.405-5). BPAs and orders placed against a MAS, using the procedures in this subpart, are considered to be issued using full and open competition (see  6.102(d)(3))

If you follow the procedures of FAR 8.4, which includes doing a limited sources justification for brand name restriction, you are using full and open competition.  That’s the rational the FPDS developers using with FPDS.  That’s why FPDS automatically categories actions that way.
 

 

[Don Mansfield]

34 minutes ago, NewbieFed said:

FPDS vs Buy American Act vs Trade Agreements Act, etc.

 

FPDS automatically categorizes GSA orders as full and open competition. But the FAR with the BAA/TAA seems to suggest GSA with Brand Name restrictions is NOT full and open competition.

I think sometimes you just have to appease the FPDS gods, even if it seems kind of weird.

[K_Stout]

If you are asking about the data value for extent competed in FPDS that should be the extent that the IDV was competed, and pull from the IDV's record. FPDS provides more detailed information on how to answer each block under the help functionality if you go to the website directly. DO TO data values