Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Problem of the Month  

5 members have voted

  1. 1. Do the special documentation requirements at FAR 13.501 apply to the acquisition?

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts

Scenario: You are a DoD contracting officer and you have a requirement for brand name commercial items valued at $1 million. The acquisition is in support of a contingency operation and the purchase will be made outside the United States using simplified acquisition procedures (simplified acquisition threshold is $1.5 million). Class deviation 2018-O0013 is in effect, so "$150,000" has been replaced with "simplified acquisition threshold" at FAR 13.501(a)(2)(i).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bite. So, your definition of the "SAT" means $1.5M since you're in a declared contingency. Since you're using SAP under the SAT, and not using the "special contracting" of 13.5, you should be following 13.106-1(b).

(b) Soliciting from a single source.

(1) For purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. (bolded for emphasis, remember, the threshold is now $1.5M)

  • (i) Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).

    (ii) Where a single source is identified to provide a portion of a purchase because that portion of the purchase specifies a particular brand-name item, the documentation in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section only applies to the portion of the purchase requiring the brand-name item. The documentation should state it is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name

If you cross that $1.5M threshold, now you're in 13.5. 

Make sense? The definition of the SAT changes in contingency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and if using oral solicitations, under authority found at FAR 13.106(c) as described at FAR 5.101 (a)(2)(ii), from only local sources, and applying the FAR 5.202(a)(12) exception to the usual FAR 5.201 synopsis requirement, then  absent the requirement to synopsize,  the requirements of FAR 5.102 do not apply, and the single source brand name documentation which is prepared under authority of FAR 13.106(b)(1) need not be posted on the GPE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, leo1102 said:

Are you sure you don't mean 13.501(a)(2)(ii)?

No, the deviation changed (i), not (ii).


2 hours ago, ContractingCowboi said:

Make sense? The definition of the SAT changes in contingency. 

Yep. Not saying you're right or wrong, but you make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been curious to know what I'd do in a contingency situation with that $1.5M threshold. So the DFARS says you can use an SF44 for overseas transactions up to the SAT for contingencies. I've often wondered if I'd ever utilize it. I made up a scenario.

Imagine you're deployed overseas, and AFSOC (let's say an 0-6) comes to you and says "We've located this bad guy (assume he's the next Bin Laden), he's on a yacht throwing a party and we can't bomb him due to collateral damage. Buy us a $1.2M yacht so we can sneak our special forces over to him, kill him, and cause as few casualties as possible." It has to be a yacht to avoid suspicion, and, odds are, they'll just destroy the boat or abandon it afterwards.

What would you do? It fits the criteria, it's an on-the-spot, over the counter purchase, and it's below the SAT. You're gonna pay the standard commercial prices, and you know prices are fair and reasonable. Would you simply write up an SF44, pay the $1.2M in cash, and be done with it? 

Would you reach back and get approval? Would you try to figure out clearances, or legal reviews? I've got my own opinion, but I'm curious to know what others would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't think the intent of Wifcon.com--provoking thought, learning, helping others, sharing knowledge--has been defeated.  The format of this "poll" has morphed into a discussion.  It would be helpful if posters would first answer Don's poll question and then discuss it.  However, things have a way of morphing into something else around here.  In the end, I'm not complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Bob. I don't mean to go against the grain in these forums, but I'm a contingency contracting officer while deployed, and having these types of discussions helps a ton with our training.

I'm kind of a FAR nerd, so I like posting my opinions and see if they are logical and make sense. There's always someone out there who knows more than you do. Especially in this career field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...