Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Ignoring whether or not agency should have used this vehicle, agency establishes multiple IDIQ contracts with FSS holders under FAR Subpart 8.4. The award of IDIQ contracts would seem to bring FAR Subpart 16.5 into play. Agency then issues a request for quotations by issuing a solicitation to all the IDIQ holders. While it seems clear that a procurement under FAR Subpart 8.4 does not involve the use of competitive proposals (see Millennium Space Systems, Inc., B-406771, August 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 237), it appears unsettled whether the use of an IDIQ contract vehicle transform the procurement from one involving other competitive procedures to one making the use of competitive proposals. The FAR generally links competitive proposals language directly to FAR Part 15 (see FAR 6.102( B ), but a nexus is created in FAR 16.505( B )(4) wherein is mandated that FAR 15.506 procedures be followed for postaward debriefings.

And, just to muddy the waters a bit more, the FAR is explicitly clear that “responses to requests for quotation (simplified acquisition) are ‘quotations,’ not offers” while “responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called ‘proposals.’” FAR § 2.101 (under “Offer”). And, as that same provision explains, an offer “means a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offeror to perform the resultant contract.” Id. Thus, according to the FAR, there is a clear and unalterable distinction between “quotations” (where no contract is formed by its submission) and “proposals” (where the submission binds the offeror and a contract results).

So here is the question: Is a FAR Subpart 8.4 procurement that utilizes IDIQ contracts under FAR Subpart 16.5 a procurement on the basis of competitive proposals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question is not clear to me. I do not understand the distinction you appear to be making between competitive procedures and competitive proposals. Perhaps my confusion arises from the incomplete set of facts and the reference to an inapposite GAO decision.

FAR Subpart 8.4 procedures apply to Federal Supply Schedules and to instruments awarded under the Schedules. Typically, these are orders and BPAs.

Also, the FAR gives precedence to FAR Subpart 8.4 over FAR Subpart 16.5. See the second sentence of paragraph (c ) of FAR 16.500:

"Nothing in this subpart restricts the authority of the General Services Administration (GSA) to enter into schedule, multiple award, or task or delivery order contracts under any other provision of law. Therefore, GSA regulations and the coverage for the Federal Supply Schedule program in Subpart 8.4 and Part 38 take precedence over this subpart."

Absent a sole source justification, FAR Subpart 8.4 requires you to obtain competition among the holders of a contract vehicle placed under a Schedule. You follow FAR 8.4 procedures, not FAR 16.5 ones.

The procedures you follow when using FAR 8.4, 15 or 16.5 do vary. Each FAR Part is a bit different with FAR 15 being more procedure rich than the other FAR references. The fact that a solicitation issued pursuant to different FAR reference calls for a proposal while another calls for a quote will not change the requirement to conduct a competition in accordance with the procedures of the relevant reference and with the terms of your solicitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Ignoring whether or not agency should have used this vehicle, agency establishes multiple IDIQ contracts with FSS holders under FAR Subpart 8.4.

That's not clear. Did the agency establish IDIQ contracts of its own or did it place orders against GSA FSS IDIQ contracts? Did the agency establish IDIQ contracts or did it issue orders under GSA FSS IDIQ contracts?

The award of IDIQ contracts would seem to bring FAR Subpart 16.5 into play.

Are you suggesting that FAR Subpart 16.5 applies to GSA FSS IDIQ contracts? If you are, see FAR 16.500( c).

While it seems clear that a procurement under FAR Subpart 8.4 does not involve the use of competitive proposals (see Millennium Space Systems, Inc., B-406771, August 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 237), it appears unsettled whether the use of an IDIQ contract vehicle transform the procurement from one involving other competitive procedures to one making the use of competitive proposals. The FAR generally links competitive proposals language directly to FAR Part 15 (see FAR 6.102( B ), but a nexus is created in FAR 16.505( B )(4) wherein is mandated that FAR 15.506 procedures be followed for postaward debriefings.

That's gobbledegook. I have no idea what you mean. Please revise to be more clear. Check your terminology.

So here is the question: Is a FAR Subpart 8.4 procurement that utilizes IDIQ contracts under FAR Subpart 16.5 a procurement on the basis of competitive proposals?

Unclear. Look:

Orders placed against GSA FSS IDIQ contracts are subject to FAR Subpart 8.4, not FAR Subpart 16.5

Orders placed against other IDIQ contracts are subject to FAR Subpart 16.5, not FAR Subpart 8.4.

Neither is subject to FAR Part 15. Neither is competitive proposals contracting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Musing I would offer even FAR part 8.4 is not applicable. As napolik has pointed out an IDIQ is not an order type allowed under FSS. vakattny is now swimming in the possible waters of an unauthorized commitment that needs to be fixed before one needs to worry about whether the competitions under the unauthorized orders are competitive or not.

Following along the lines of Vern's post while the agency in vakattny's post did attempt to do something under FAR 8.4 then FAR 8.4 is applicable, and as such the placement of subsequent orders under the presumed IDIQ's are not competitive proposals.

https://interact.gsa.gov/discussion/frequently-asked-questions-faqs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...