Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

Greetings,

Referenced to the following GAO report on http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662579.pdf I am trying to find out if anyone knows where I can find the reference to the report statement “ DOD Class Justification are Used Primarily for Acquisition of Weapon Systems and related Components…” in the FAR, DFARS, USC, CFR, etc…

On a similar note I have a question pertaining to Class J&A:

Taking into consideration the following discussions:

http://www.wifcon.com/arc/forum440.htm

http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/955-sole-source-acquisition-under-far-subpart-135/

The following comments were made on the discussion referenced, “…because the requirement for full and open competition does not apply to acquisitions under Subpart 13.5. See FAR 6.001(a). FAR 13.501 requires that you follow the "format" in 6.303-2, which does not prescribe a title for the document. "Sole Source Justification" or "Sole Source Justification and Approval" is proper, because that is what it is if you are soliciting and negotiating with only once source and that is how such acquisitions are referred to in FAR 13.106-1( B ). "Justification and Approval" is inadequate.”

Taking in this consideration of using the term Sole Source Justification… is there such a thing called Class Sole Source Justification. The only place I have found where there is even a mention of “Class” Justification is under FAR 6.303.

“Justifications required by paragraph (a) above may be made on an individual or class basis. Any justification for contracts awarded under the authority of 6.302-7 shall only be made on an individual basis. Whenever a justification is made and approved on a class basis, the contracting officer must ensure that each contract action taken pursuant to the authority of the class justification and approval is within the scope of the class justification and approval and shall document the contract file for each contract action accordingly.”

Our office has an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supply, which I’ve noticed has been procured numerous times, and each time it’s procured a J&A – OTFOC using 13.5 (I know… term may be wrong based on the discussion linked) is done and goes through the same acquisition process (e.g., publishing). I was thinking of doing a Class J&A or in this case a “Class Sole Source Justification” – if it is appropriate to call it that. Reason for this term, is… I anticipate the overall cost per year for this OEM supply to be around $5.5M (below the $6.5 threshold for FAR 13.5), thus, I would reference 13.501(a) for my actions. Yes, I could establish an IDIQ of some sort (but that is another story…). I am focus on the J&A aspect for now. Is this a reasonable approach?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is all over the place. It seems like you're not comprehending the things that you are reading/referencing, but I hope this will help get your thoughts organized.

First, "DOD Class Justification are Used Primarily for Acquisition of Weapon Systems and related Components" from the GAO report is one of the key findings from GAO's analysis of the DOD's Use of Class Justifications for Sole-Souce Contracts....so the referenced material leading to that conclusion is in the two and a half pages following that heading.

"Taking in this consideration of using the term Sole Source Justification… is there such a thing called Class Sole Source Justification. The only place I have found where there is even a mention of “Class” Justification is under FAR 6.303."

...your first question was on a GAO analsis of the "DOD's Use of Class Justifications for Sole Source Contracts"...it seems pretty obvious that justifications approved on a class basis exist.

And to your final question about your plan: It depends. What are your agency/local requirements and process for obtaining a class justification for sole source contracts approval is? You need to consider this, the total number of aniticpated contracts and the anticipated dollar value of each of your potential contracts to determine if pursuing a class justification is a better path than getting a sole source J&A approved for each contract.

If the dollar value of each individual contract is at a level where the KO can approve the J&A, would it be worth the effort to get one class J&A at a higher level of approval when in accordance with the FAR the contracting officer must still document the contract file to ensure that each contract action taken is pursuant to the authority of the class justification and approval is within the scope of the class justification?

You should re-read FAR Part 6, then the DFARS, your agency supplement, etc. all the way down to your local policy to answer this question for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that this "class J&A" would be used for orders from one firm. If you go with an ID/IQ rather than separate contract vehicles/purchase orders for each order, would a J&A otherwise be necessary for each order on that ID/IQ (without a "class J&A")? I.e., is a class J&A applicable if you use one ID/IQ? If not, is there an advantage to using separate contract vehicles/ purchase orders for each order under a class J&A? Which is simpler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steward. "DOD Class Justification are Used Primarily for Acquisition of Weapon Systems and related Components" is an assessment outcome made by GAO and not necessarily a reflection of what FAR states… if this is what you mean then duly noted. I sometimes take GAO’s responses literally regarding its reference to the FAR/DFARS. THAT and as I was reading the report at 5:00 AM in the morning, coffee had not kicked in.

Joel. It would seem simpler to establish an IDIQ type contract to the firm providing the OEM supply. However, for lack of reasons (which I am still trying to question – it maybe that the agency want options on contract type when procuring the OEM supply), a Class J&A would opt not having to do individual J&A for every separate procurement that the agency does for the same OEM supply.

Break:

I did some more reading and I noticed that per discussion http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/955-sole-source-acquisition-under-far-subpart-135/, which referenced FAR 6.303-2(a)(4), which states “An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open completion” – reference no longer exist. So, I guess terming a J&A – OTFOC – Sole Source under FAR 13.5 would now be appropriate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FAR 13.;501( a )( 1 )( ii ) says "Prepare sole source (including brand name) justifications using the format at 6.303-2, modified to reflect..."

Accordingly, I title the document SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION.

I do not title it a "Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition" because the Full and Open Competition standard is not applicable.

Other people can give it whatever title they want to. Call it a "J&A – OTFOC – Sole Source under FAR 13.5" if someone wants to. But, I hope they understand the underlying principles -- FAR Subpart 6.3 provides the authority for Other Than Full and Open Competition -- sole source acquisitions under FAR Subpart 13.5 are not Other Than Full and Open Competition -- sole source acquisition under FAR Subpart 13.5 are not under the authority of FAR Subpart 6.3 The only connection is that sole source justifications under FAR Subpart 13.5 are prepared "using the format at 6.303-2, modified to reflect..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ipod, I completely understand the morning fog...

I'm really curious about why you can't use an IDIQ. Ordering off an IDIQ acehieves the same results as exericsing an option, especially if you have the item you're procuring priced on the base IDIQ. Also, you can issue an order on an IDIQ that has options.

Joel, in response to your comment, "It appears that this "class J&A" would be used for orders from one firm." I think what defines a 'class J&A" is dependent on the agency. I couldn't find any specific definition of a class so that means we would use a common dictionary defintion (for 'class J&A', good luck) but FAR 6.304© states, "A class justification for other than full and open competition shall be approved in writing in accordance with agency procedures." For me that's the Army. The DFARS does not talk to class justifications but the AFARS clearly defines a class justification for Army folk. See AFARS 5106.303-1(d)

"A justification approved on a class basis authorizes the award of two or more contract actions using other than full and open competition. Provided that it complies with the requirements below, the justification may encompass identified contract actions for the same or integrally related supplies or services or other contract actions that require essentially identical justification. A justification made on a class basis—

(i) Is not limited to a single contractor;

(ii) May cover contracts for non-permanent requirements to be awarded in successive fiscal years, provided that the requirements and quantities are included in the Future Years Defense Plan, and their costs have been specifically identified;

(iii) Must address every contract included in the scope of the class justification in each paragraph, in detail (e.g., specific quantity and dollar amounts for each contract; detailed documentation of the circumstances supporting the use of other than full and open competitive procedures for each contracting action); and

(iv) Must include only those supply or service components that are, and will clearly remain, sole or limited source for the period covered by the justification."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...