Supes Posted February 5, 2021 Report Share Posted February 5, 2021 I have an upcoming requirement for an single source SA-IDIQ that's for commercial services below the $1M. Our legal office, in reviewing our AP, has been citing all sorts of FAR Part 6 requirements we'd need to meet to do this as a sole source and making the whole process more difficult even after I referenced that I was intending to solicit this IDIQ under FAR 13 to a single source. Their response to my FAR 13 argument was that it doesn't apply to awarding IDIQs which doesn't make much sense to me (I've used FAR 15 to award an IDIQ, why not FAR 13?). Now they've got me questioning my previous experience/knowledge in whether or not FAR 13/14/15 apply when procuring an IDIQ under FAR 16.504. I looked at previous solicitations from this office and they all only mentioned FAR 12 and 16.504 for IDIQs, no mention of FAR 13 or 15 at all. Am I losing it and we don't need to apply FAR 13/14/15 procedures to IDIQs or do we still need to utilize FAR 13/14/15 as applicable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted February 5, 2021 Report Share Posted February 5, 2021 You want to award a new sole-source single-award IDIQ contract for commercial services with a contract maximum of $1,000,000? Yes, you can do this using FAR part 13. See FAR 13.000 and 13.501(a)(1). Part 13 can be used for purchase orders or contracts. FAR part 6 does not apply to acquisitions using FAR part 13. See FAR 6.001(a). Or, are you talking about an order under an already-existing single-award IDIQ contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted February 5, 2021 Report Share Posted February 5, 2021 15 hours ago, Supes said: Their response to my FAR 13 argument was that it doesn't apply to awarding IDIQs which doesn't make much sense to me It doesn't make much sense to me either. See the GAO's decision in the matter of IDIS, Corp., B- 414429 (Comp.Gen.), B- 414429.2, 2017 CPD ¶ 186. Here are the opening paragraphs: Quote IDIS, Corp., a small business, of Parker, Arizona, protests the award of a contract to Metris LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned, small business, of Gilbert, Arizona, by the Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. M00681–17–T–0012, for advanced high-altitude high-opening parachute support services for the 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force. IDIS, the incumbent contractor, argues that the agency's evaluation of Metris' quotation was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The Marine Corps issued the solicitation on January 26, 2017, under the commercial item acquisition and simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) part 12 and subpart 13.5. RFQ amend. No. 1 at 5. The RFQ contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for advanced high-altitude high-opening parachute support services. Id. at 6. The solicitation provided that award would be made to the firm that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation. Id. at 16. Orders for the work would be issued on a fixed-price basis during a 12–month base period, and a 12–month option period. Id. at 6. GAO said the dollar value of the acquisition was $621,880. Here's a paragraph from further in the decision: Quote As noted above, the Marine Corps conducted this procurement using simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items. Simplified acquisition procedures are designed, among other things, to reduce administrative costs, promote efficiency and economy in contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. FAR § 13.002. When using these procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. McLaurin Gen. Maint., Inc., B–411443.2, B–411443.3, Jan. 14, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶41 at 3. In reviewing protests of an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation, our Office examines the record to determine whether the agency met this standard and executed its discretion reasonably. Wilson 5 Serv. Co., Inc., B–412861, B–412861.2, May 27, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶154 at 3. A protester's disagreement with an agency's evaluation is not sufficient to sustain the protest. Id. For another decision involving the use of SAP to award an IDIQ for commercial items, see JRS Staffing Services, B- 410098 (Comp.Gen.), B- 410100, 2014 CPD P 312. For yet another, see LCLC Inc/CfMRF, B- 414357 (Comp.Gen.), 2017 CPD P 153, 2017. The maximum for that contract was $6.5 million. I could go on, but you get the idea. You can get the decisions by Googling the "B" number. When you locate them, download them, print them out, take them to your legal office, tell the lawyers them to read them, and then ask them what they know that the GAO doesn't know. And don't let them tell you that the decisions don't count because the use of SAP to award an IDIQ was not the issue. If GAO had thought it to be in violation of law or regulation they would have said something to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supes Posted February 6, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2021 17 hours ago, ji20874 said: You want to award a new sole-source single-award IDIQ contract for commercial services with a contract maximum of $1,000,000? Yes, you can do this using FAR part 13. See FAR 13.000 and 13.501(a)(1). Part 13 can be used for purchase orders or contracts. FAR part 6 does not apply to acquisitions using FAR part 13. See FAR 6.001(a). Or, are you talking about an order under an already-existing single-award IDIQ contract? I'm talking about the IDIQ itself. Thanks for your and Verns response. Is there any logic to only using FAR 12 and 16.504? Some strange contracting this organization does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted February 6, 2021 Report Share Posted February 6, 2021 36 minutes ago, Supes said: Is there any logic to only using FAR 12 and 16.504? Some strange contracting this organization does... How would you use only FAR 12 and 16.504 to award a contract? See FAR 12.203, Procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award: Quote Contracting officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; part 14 Sealed Bidding; or part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition. The contracting officer may use the streamlined procedure for soliciting offers for commercial items prescribed in 12.603. For acquisitions of commercial items exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $7.5 million ($15 million for acquisitions as described in 13.500 (c)), including options, contracting activities may use any of the simplified procedures authorized by subpart 13.5. [Emphasis added.] FAR Part 12 is not stand-alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted February 6, 2021 Report Share Posted February 6, 2021 To assist in fact building for your argument that Part 13 is appropriate do not forget the imperative of FAR 13.003 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts