Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, formerfed said:

 

Don,

I’m saying the initial synopsis covers everything that is within the BPA scope.  The FAR 5.001 definition talks about a contract action but not including actions with the scope.  So no exception is required as long as calls fall within the published scope.

Or another way of looking at it is assume a BPA is synopsized just like any type contract that involves ordering (except perhaps requirement type).   Orders within scope aren’t synopsized so why should BPA calls that fall within the synopsis?

If someone doesn’t agree, go ahead and synopsized calls. In all likelihood, companies won’t be able to respond in time anyway.  Many seeing the synopsis likely participated in the initial BPA competition and understand.  In any event you might get a few better deals.  

If that’s the case, then why does 5.202 except TOs against IDIQs?  Wouldn’t the TOs be within the scope as synopsized?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Krimz said:

If that’s the case, then why does 5.202 except TOs against IDIQs?  Wouldn’t the TOs be within the scope as synopsized?

I don’t remember all the details but that goes back many, many years.  I think the exception is based on statute in the OFPP act on synopsizing and language covered an exception for requirements contract.  It didn’t cover other types of indefinite delivery contracts since use was optional.  Years later people questioned the FAR committee why it covered only requirements contract so wording got changed.   I didn’t bother checking details but that’s from memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider a call a contract action because it triggers a CAR, and so to me, over $25k, it must be synopsized.

I guess what really matters is 1) whether or not your boss is okay with forgoing the synopsis over $25k, 2) whether or not your auditors are okay with you forgoing the synopsis over $25k.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Krimz said:

I consider a call a contract action because it triggers a CAR, and so to me, over $25k, it must be synopsized.

I guess what really matters is 1) whether or not your boss is okay with forgoing the synopsis over $25k, 2) whether or not your auditors are okay with you forgoing the synopsis over $25k.
 

Well yes but on your guess I hope you and your boss consider case law too to support your decision to the auditors.    Consider Faye Zhengxing vs. the United States.  I will let you do the research and reading rather than posting a link as I believe a full read of what you find will lead you down the path to the classic 'it depends" response.  Specifically to a BPA it just could be whether the terms of the BPA itself establishes a "mutuality of obligation" leading to the fact that the BPA if synopsized would satisfy FAR subpart 5.201.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2020 at 6:59 AM, C Culham said:

Well yes but on your guess I hope you and your boss consider case law too to support your decision to the auditors.    Consider Faye Zhengxing vs. the United States.  I will let you do the research and reading rather than posting a link as I believe a full read of what you find will lead you down the path to the classic 'it depends" response.  Specifically to a BPA it just could be whether the terms of the BPA itself establishes a "mutuality of obligation" leading to the fact that the BPA if synopsized would satisfy FAR subpart 5.201.

Thanks for the suggestion.  It's a good read, and it really confirms my own thoughts.  That said, I've just come across a BPA against which I am authorized to place calls with a per-call limit of $1,000,000, which does not require synopsis.  I do not have all the details on how it was established, but I know of no procedures that would allow me to circumvent the synopsis requirement of 5.201.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2020 at 6:59 AM, C Culham said:

Specifically to a BPA it just could be whether the terms of the BPA itself establishes a "mutuality of obligation" leading to the fact that the BPA if synopsized would satisfy FAR subpart 5.201.

I don't understand Carl. Assuming a given FAR part 13 BPA does not meet the definition of "contract" at FAR 2.101, what exception to the synopsis requirement would apply to a call over $25,000?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2020 at 1:27 PM, formerfed said:

 

Don,

I’m saying the initial synopsis covers everything that is within the BPA scope.  The FAR 5.001 definition talks about a contract action but not including actions with the scope.  So no exception is required as long as calls fall within the published scope.

Or another way of looking at it is assume a BPA is synopsized just like any type contract that involves ordering (except perhaps requirement type).   Orders within scope aren’t synopsized so why should BPA calls that fall within 

The FAR 5.001 definition says "within the scope of the contract". So if we assume that a FAR part 13 BPA is not a contract, then a BPA call would not be "within the scope of the contract."

Having said that, it doesn't seem consistent to require a synopsis for a call under a previously synopsized BPA, but not task or delivery orders under a previously synopsized indefinite delivery contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

The FAR 5.001 definition says "within the scope of the contract". So if we assume that a FAR part 13 BPA is not a contract, then a BPA call would not be "within the scope of the contract."

Having said that, it doesn't seem consistent to require a synopsis for a call under a previously synopsized BPA, but not task or delivery orders under a previously synopsized indefinite delivery contract.

Going back to my post responded to, I’m saying calls are synopsized in the BPA announcement.  Let’s say “agency plans to competitively award multiple BPAs for widgets and widget support services.  Agency anticipates this covers an annual value of $500,000 with 100 calls and the term of the BPAs are three years.  Historical value of individual orders range from $200 to $30,000 with delivery of four weeks.”

Doesn’t that cover the intent of synopsizing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, formerfed said:

Going back to my post responded to, I’m saying calls are synopsized in the BPA announcement.  Let’s say “agency plans to competitively award multiple BPAs for widgets and widget support services.  Agency anticipates this covers an annual value of $500,000 with 100 calls and the term of the BPAs are three years.  Historical value of individual orders range from $200 to $30,000 with delivery of four weeks.”

Doesn’t that cover the intent of synopsizing?

So one synopsis would cover multiple calls over $25,000?

I don't think that would be compliant with FAR 5.201(b)(1):

Quote

 

For acquisitions of supplies and services, other than those covered by the exceptions in 5.202 and the special situations in 5.205, the contracting officer must transmit a notice to the GPE, for each proposed-

                (i) Contract action meeting the threshold in 5.101(a)(1);

 

I interpret that as each call over $25,000 requiring its own unique notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

53 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

So one synopsis would cover multiple calls over $25,000?

I don't think that would be compliant with FAR 5.201(b)(1):

I interpret that as each call over $25,000 requiring its own unique notice.

Fair enough.  I see and understand what you’re saying. But I’m not sold on it.

If I were in a contracts office and doing this, I would do what Im suggesting.  There are numerous advantages and my position is easily defended. 

After all the purpose of synopsis is promoting competition, small business, and transparency.  This satisfies it all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

I don't understand Carl. Assuming a given FAR part 13 BPA does not meet the definition of "contract" at FAR 2.101, what exception to the synopsis requirement would apply to a call over $25,000?

Don - Poor response on my part.   I am not arguing that an exception applies but was offering that case law supports that a BPA is not a contract yet there could be a slight crack in the door of a possibility depending on how the BPA is worded.   My basis for saying this is that if you follow Faye Zhengxing vs. the United States to Modern Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States the Court in Modern states this -

"The absence of mutuality of obligation leads to the conclusion that the parties lacked the requisite contractual intent. Additionally, the BPA is not sufficiently definite for this court to find that the Postal Service was in breach by not ordering its MAC work through MSTC."

Overall I was concerned with the reference to Contract Action Report (CAR) as to what concludes a BPA call to be a contract.  There is much more to it than that and was hoping the OP might follow inference of Faye to follow the trail.

I probably got too out there as your intent on your statements is correct (hopefully I repeating correctly)  if you stick to FAR part 13 guidance a BPA itself is not a contract which then leads the  to the discussion of synopsis..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2020 at 5:32 PM, C Culham said:

Don - Poor response on my part.   I am not arguing that an exception applies but was offering that case law supports that a BPA is not a contract yet there could be a slight crack in the door of a possibility depending on how the BPA is worded.   My basis for saying this is that if you follow Faye Zhengxing vs. the United States to Modern Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States the Court in Modern states this -

"The absence of mutuality of obligation leads to the conclusion that the parties lacked the requisite contractual intent. Additionally, the BPA is not sufficiently definite for this court to find that the Postal Service was in breach by not ordering its MAC work through MSTC."

Overall I was concerned with the reference to Contract Action Report (CAR) as to what concludes a BPA call to be a contract.  There is much more to it than that and was hoping the OP might follow inference of Faye to follow the trail.

I probably got too out there as your intent on your statements is correct (hopefully I repeating correctly)  if you stick to FAR part 13 guidance a BPA itself is not a contract which then leads the  to the discussion of synopsis..

Well, a BPA call becomes binding.  A BPA never is binding.

Link to post
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.

Guest
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...