Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

alexreb

FAC 2005-48 & ID contracts under Subpart 19.10

Recommended Posts

Don:

That makes sense.

Might "all future (new) requirements" be construed to include options under any type of contract?

Suppose that we awarded a contract to a large business for one year of services when the Competitiveness Demonstration Program was in effect and that the contract includes an option to extend for another year. Exercise of an option is not mandatory. Under Carl's major premise, as you state it, wouldn't we be prohibited from exercising the option after the repeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow; what a lot of very technical and detailed discussion.

Syllogistic arguments aside, I just don't see how the U.S. Congress would intend to completely throw efficiency to the winds in the case of an already established IDIQ that was awarded under the previous authority. Especially since Pub. L. 111-240 was designed to help small businesses. Congress just doesn't apparently want the program used anymore "in the acquisition process" as reflected in Sec 1335 of the law.

If CICA was reworked to no longer allow logical follow on contracts for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, and was silent to the treatment of existing contracts, who in their right mind would then go out and terminate / not exercise options on those contracts? Especially in today's environment of scarcity of resources?

As a matter of practicality and common sense, I would continue to operate as normal, and be on the diligent lookout information that indicated to me that some decision has been made that what I am doing is not legally supportable.

And I don't care if someone tells me that I'm wrong, since it's far better to be wrong and find the path to being correct, than to be afraid to act decisively and in a manner consistent with common sense and reasonable interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether the exercise of an option resulted in a "new contract" for purposes of changes in the law used to be a closer question than it appears today, though the result could easily hinge on the specific language of the statute or its implementation. It seems that following International Business Investments, Inc. v. U.S., 21 Cl.Ct. 79 (1990), courts, relying on 1A Corbin on Contracts, s 264, will treat the exercise of an option as a new contract only where the option was either the exclusive or primary purpose of the original contract. Contrast some older decisions referencing CJS Contracts s 449. See generally Nash & Cibinic, Options: They Seem To Be Many-Splendored Things, 10 N&CR ? 60 (Oct. 1990) (discussing the various treatments of an option as either a new contract or part of the original contract under CICA, protest jurisdiction, Prompt Payment Act (written before the decision discussed above), and Service Contract Act).

Edit: In the commercial context, for sale of goods, the Uniform Commercial Code s 2-612 envisions "installment contracts" which appear similar to indefinite delivery contracts. Under UCC s 2-612, the overarching contract calling for periodic performances is considered a unitary contract. It would be interesting to see whether there are any court decisions as whether a change in the law applies prospectively to deliveries under an existing installment contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest carl r culham

Don - I am working on a response to your earlier question posed to me. With regard to your most recent post I would offer that you have applied my premise to a different situation and all things being different in contracting one premise applied to one procurement does not make it automatically apply to another. My argument in part all along where I have agreed that my premise would not apply to a "requirements" contract. I submit that it would not in a stand alone contract contract either. For what it is worth I "may", by FAR Part 17.207(e)(2), consider the effects on small businesses but I do not have to, so in fact if I decided as a CO not to extend the option as a result of cancellation of FAR 19.10 I could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest carl r culham

Don ? Per the information of the thread inclusive of my conclusions

FACTS: ?Several? IDIQ contracts for A-E services awarded as ?multiple? year contracts or in other words awarded with options. All are awarded to large businesses awarded under the authority of the Demonstration Program ? archived ref: FAR 19.10 ? with intent to award work only above the ESB set-aside threshold of $50K.

QUESTION: Can these contracts now be used for requirements above the micro-purchase level up to the SAT and for those above the SAT as well due the cancellation of FAR Part 19.10?

ANSWER: No, as based on the following.

In evaluating the requirements newly being considered for the several IDIQs FAR Part 10.001 requires agencies to develop appropriate market research for ?new requirement documents? (Ref: FAR Part 10.001(a)(2)(i)) and for acquisitions over the SAT (Ref: FAR Part 10.001(a)(2)(ii)). As a task order (aka ?contrac? per FAR 2.101) under an IDIQ for A-E services under the instant example is either providing a ?new requirements document? or is above the SAT or both, market research is required. Further if the new requirement document is for a non-commercial item (service) and a task/delivery order is anticipated then the same market research is required (ref: FAR 10.001.(a)(2)(v)). In all these required cases existing market research if conducted within 18 months before award of a task order can be used but only if the information is ?current, accurate, and relevant? (ref: FAR Part 10.002(B)(1)). It is noted here that deletion of FAR 19.10 makes the previous market research information less than current.

Further this market research is to be specific to the item being acquired and ?should include? ?the requirements of any laws and regulations unique to the item being acquired? (ref: FAR 10.002(B)(1)(iv)) and size and status of potential sources (ref; FAR 10.002.(B)(1)(vii)). By deletion of FAR 19.10 through statutory action changes the considerations of status of potential sources.

The market research then ?shall? be used to determine the extent of competition and such competition shall not be restrictive unless satisfying agency needs or as authorized by law (ref: FAR 11.002(a)(ii)).

FAR 19.5 then provides, in the absence of FAR 19.10, that an ?acquisition? shall be set aside when circumstances in FAR 19.502-2 exist (ref; FAR 19.502-1). FAR 2.101 defines an ?acquisition? as ?the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. Acquisition begins at the point when agency needs are established and includes the description of requirements to satisfy agency needs, solicitation and selection of sources, award of contracts, contract financing, contract performance, contract administration, and those technical and management functions directly related to the process of fulfilling agency needs by contract.?

Briefly stated FAR 19.502-2 requires the reservation of an acquisition for small business if between the micro-purchase level and the SAT or if above the SAT where it is determined that offers from two or more responsible small businesses will be received.

Further consideration is given to FAR Part 16.504 regarding Indefinite-quantity contracts where it is concluded but not specifically stated that an IDIQ contract is only mandatory for use by the government up to the stated minimum (ref: FAR 16.504(a)(1)). After accomplishing this minimum it becomes, in my words, the unilateral right of the government to determine whether the IDIQ should be utilized or not.

With regard to the issue of scope I have offered the example of steel from Timbucktoo. This example has been dismissed as not applicable for no defined reason. I would offer that law is the same whether it deals with steel or the statutory requirement to consider an acquisition for small business participation.

Additionally with regard to scope the issue is scope of competition and not scope of work.

While at the time the IDIQ was competed appropriately, a follow-on need whether defined as ?new requirements documents? and/or a ?acquisition?, after accomplishment of the minimum, may well be within the scope of work but are not now within the scope of the competition as other requirements of FAR, as supported by their statutory requirements, require market research, determination of extent of competition, and in the end consideration for small business set aside. If the IDIQ cannot satisfy the ?reservation? requirement nor the ?rule of two? requirement the work essentially falls outside the IDIQ?s scope and other means must be used for the ?new requirement document? and/or ?acquisition?.

Conclusion ? After the Government satisfies the minimum under the several multiple year contracts the requirements of FAR 10, 11 and 19, the latter specific to small business participation, must be considered and applied as appropriate with regard to ?new requirements documents? and/or an ?acquisition?. In effect these FAR directives render the IDIQ contracts as not appropriate means of a type of contract in satisfying the new requirements and acquisitions and should therefore not be utilized.

Note ? An argument has been offered within the thread is provided by example of a standalone contract which I conclude to be an example that is not pertinent to the issue. I would not terminate a standalone contract in light of the deletion of FAR 19.10 because the existing standalone contract is neither a new requirements document and/or an acquisition. It is clear to me that definition of acquisition clearly includes modification (?contract administration?) and it would be appropriate to continue to modify (exercise of option) the work. Factually I also conclude the scope of the competition cannot change because it has already occurred. This is not true for a new requirement document and/or acquisition under an IDIQ after the minimum has been accomplished as by definition of FAR Part 10 and FAR Part 19 scope of competition must be determined. In light of these conclusions I have never offered that the IDIQ?s must be terminated, I only offered that it would seem appropriate to do so, if the minimum has been accomplished, as it is clear to me that the IDIQs would most likely not be used. The alternative is of course to let them sit as is and never use them.

Postscript ? The contention of ?right? or ?wrong? with regard to the arguments in this thread seem to me to be a two way door where for those that have characterized me as being ?wrong? in effect make me ?right? in their own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. So now FAR Part 10 is the key to it all.

Here is an alternative argument:

MAJOR PREMISE: There is no requirement to apply the Rule of Two to an acquisition when there is no requirement to compete the acquisition.

[Prospective "acquisitions" that are within the scope of IDIQ contracts awarded pursuant to FAR Part 6 are exempt from further competition except among multiple awardees. See FAR 6.001(e) and (f). That exemption is statutory for task orders under IDIQ contracts. See, e.g., 10 USC 2304c(a). [Task orders are also exempt from synopsis as otherwise would be required by the Small Business Act, 15 USC 637(e). See 10 USC 2304c(a)(1).] If there is no requirement to compete an acquisition, it follows that there is no requirement to seek offers from two or more firms. Yet in order to set an acquisition aside for small businesses there must be competition from two or more small business firms. So -- no requirement for competition, no requirement to set aside. (Delex applies the Rule of Two to acquisitions competed under multiple award IDIQ contracts and limits set asides to small business awardees.)]

MINOR PREMISE: The IDIQ contracts were awarded pursuant to FAR Part 6 and the prospective acquisitions are within-scope, thus, the CO is not required to obtain further competition except among multiple awardees.

CONCLUSION: The Rule of Two does not apply to the prospective acquisitions, except among multiple awardees, so repeal of the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program does not prevent continued use of the IDIQ contracts.

The readers can decide which argument makes more sense: this one or the newest one from Carl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern, thanks for taking the time to see this through. I see your latest assumes this is not a multiple award IDIQ, while Carl seems to assume this is a multiple award IDIQ.

I should probably have the common sense to let this thread speak for itself, but I won't.

Carl, I thought that what you were going to answer is why repeal of Subpart 19.10 would be effective for delivery orders issued after repeal against contracts awarded prior to repeal. Instead, it appears your analysis assumes the repeal applies retroactively. From this, you conclude (at least in the multiple award IDIQ context), the Rule of Two may apply.

If I am following your argument, we are forced to revisit the Rule of Two, despite the fact that all contractors holding an IDIQ are large, by virtue of the requirement to conduct market research prior to the award of a delivery order.

First, for all the reasons already stated, I can't assume that repeal applies retroactively; which your argument assumes. In addition, consider BearingPoint, Inc. v. U.S., 77 Fed.Cl. 189 (2007), 49 GC ? 248 (FAR change giving ordering activity authority to terminate for default made effective between award of the basic contract and the issuance of an order did not apply to the order, relying on FAR 1.108 and the fact the change would require a change in the terms and conditions of the contract that could only be made by written agreement of the parties).

Second, it isn't obvious to me that the market research required prior to the issuance of a delivery order, absent retroactive application and some affirmative duty to revisit the field of potential sources, would require revisiting the field of potential sources. Your analysis seems to hinge on your reading of FAR 10.002(B)(1)(vii). It says, "Market research involves obtaining information specific to the item being acquired and should include...size and status of potential sources." From this, you find (create?) a requirement to revisit a set-aside determination each time a delivery order is issued. [Edit: By this, I mean consider a field of potential sources larger than those eligible to compete for the delivery order.] I'm skeptical. FAR 10.001(a)(2) list out the points when market research must be conducted. The market research required--appropriate to the circumstances--preceding the issuance of a delivery order is to consider whether a commercial item is available to meet the government's requirements. FAR 10.001(a)(2)(v).

Carl, if this were a single award IDIQ, would your result be the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacques:

The issue is whether an IDIQ contract awarded before the repeal remains viable after the repeal. Under my argument it makes no difference whether the IDIQ contract is single award or multiple award. The contract remains viable. However, if it's multiple award, and if there are two or more small businesses among the awardees, and if you would respect the Delex decision (which I would not), then the contract remains viable, but the Rule of Two would apply among the multiple awardees.

As for Carl's latest, Part 10 requires market research and that's all it requires. It does not require that within-scope work be treated as new work if there are two small businesses that are not among the awardees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest carl r culham

Jacques - Yes to your question and just for the record I have assumed nothing about the example, Cajun stated there were several IDIQ contracts and I simply stated same.

I am not depending on FAR Pat 10 I am depending on the fact that any IDIQ is not mandatory after the minimum is met. Seems my answers throughout this thread would pinpoint this contention but there are some that want to section out issues just to defend their own position. Understood.

At the risk at taking this thread completely off track I believe I have from memory and my limited ability to do research (no Westlaw etc.) come up with a better analogy that has not been mentioned as of yet. No doubt I will continue to bear the brunt of brow beating and less than complimentary comments but I am simply interested in the debate.

So here I go..............

Consider Federal Supply Schedules that function much like an IDIQ. In June of 2004 the language of the FAR was changed, without statutory support, to allow agencies using the FSS to forgo small business restriction or set-aside (ref: FAC-2001-24). By my limited read the FAR Council simply believed it was the best thing to do even though there were comments to the contrary. I offer this example as by my recollection, prior to FAC 2001-24, small business participation was implied as necessary and the FAC changed this implication.

Followed three years later by GAO Protest B-309911. In this protest the protester was found not to be an interested party and the details of the protest were never addressed. It seems they appealed but I cannot find the follow-on results. The protest was against the failure of the agency to set aside the FSS procurement for small business. Again the protest was dismissed as the protester was not an interested party but what I found interesting in the read of the protest was the following comment by GAO -

"During the course of this protest, we sought the views of both the GSA, which administers the FSS program, and the Small Business Administration, as well as the Army. The submissions made clear that these agencies do not agree about how the set-aside requirements of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sect. 644(j) (2000), apply to orders placed against the FSS."

I find the comparison to the arguments in this thread to be interestingly similar - no agreement.

Again in my very rural abilities to search regarding appeals etc. I could find nothing. Maybe there is more and will watch intently for what folks might post.

Otherwise, I an satisfied with my participation in this thread and I am resigned to just waiting to watch for a GAO decision exactly on point, undoubtedly inclusive of any input from SB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacques - Yes to your question and just for the record I have assumed nothing about the example, Cajun stated there were several IDIQ contracts and I simply stated same.

I am not depending on FAR Pat 10 I am depending on the fact that any IDIQ is not mandatory after the minimum is met. Seems my answers throughout this thread would pinpoint this contention but there are some that want to section out issues just to defend their own position. Understood.

At the risk at taking this thread completely off track I believe I have from memory and my limited ability to do research (no Westlaw etc.) come up with a better analogy that has not been mentioned as of yet. No doubt I will continue to bear the brunt of brow beating and less than complimentary comments but I am simply interested in the debate.

So here I go..............

Consider Federal Supply Schedules that function much like an IDIQ. In June of 2004 the language of the FAR was changed, without statutory support, to allow agencies using the FSS to forgo small business restriction or set-aside (ref: FAC-2001-24). By my limited read the FAR Council simply believed it was the best thing to do even though there were comments to the contrary. I offer this example as by my recollection, prior to FAC 2001-24, small business participation was implied as necessary and the FAC changed this implication.

Followed three years later by GAO Protest B-309911. In this protest the protester was found not to be an interested party and the details of the protest were never addressed. It seems they appealed but I cannot find the follow-on results. The protest was against the failure of the agency to set aside the FSS procurement for small business. Again the protest was dismissed as the protester was not an interested party but what I found interesting in the read of the protest was the following comment by GAO -

"During the course of this protest, we sought the views of both the GSA, which administers the FSS program, and the Small Business Administration, as well as the Army. The submissions made clear that these agencies do not agree about how the set-aside requirements of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sect. 644(j) (2000), apply to orders placed against the FSS."

I find the comparison to the arguments in this thread to be interestingly similar - no agreement.

Again in my very rural abilities to search regarding appeals etc. I could find nothing. Maybe there is more and will watch intently for what folks might post.

Otherwise, I an satisfied with my participation in this thread and I am resigned to just waiting to watch for a GAO decision exactly on point, undoubtedly inclusive of any input from SB

The applicability of FAR 19 to FAR 8 is clearly a different issue from those that have been volleyed about in this thread. While I am reluctant to discuss yet another one in this thread, I am compelled to point out that GAO has stated clearly that FAR 19 does not require contracting officers to apply the rule of two to procurements conducted under FAR Part 8.

Quote

Nothing in the Small Business Act suggests or requires that the Rule of Two--which is set forth in the regulations that implement that Act (but is not found in the Act itself), see Delex Sys., Inc., B-400403, Oct. 8, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 181 at 6-7--takes precedence over the FSS program. To the contrary, and as noted above, the implementing regulations for the small business set-aside program and the FSS program expressly provide that set-aside requirements for the program do not apply to FSS buys. See FAR sections 8.404(a), 19.502-1(B), 38.101(e). Accordingly, we conclude that the Small Business Act and its implementing regulations do not impose a requirement on agencies to first evaluate whether a solicitation should be set-aside for small businesses before purchasing the goods or services through the FSS program.

Unquote

See Edmond Computer Company; Edmond Scientific Company, B-402863; B-402864, August 25, 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl now brings up FAC 2001-24, which may be found at 69 FR 34231, June 18, 2004, Item V. He apparently thinks that something in it supports his contentions about the applicability of the Rule of Two to task order contracts awarded during the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. That FAC was published following a proposed rule published at 68 FR 19294, April 18, 2003. The stated purpose of the proposed rule was to ?strengthen? procedures for establishing blanket purchase agreements under FSS contracts. In another place the rules was said to ?clarify? procedures for establishing BPAs. Among other things, the proposed rule stated the intention to add the following language to FAR:

(a) General. Parts 13, except 13.303-2( c)(3), 15, and 19 do not apply to orders placed against Federal Supply Schedules (see 8.404-5). Orders and Blanket Purchase Agreements placed against a Multiple Award Schedule (MAS), using the procedures in this subpart, are considered to be issued using full and open competition (see 6.102(d)(3)). Therefore, when establishing a Blanket Purchase Agreement or placing orders under Federal Supply Schedules using the procedures of 8.404, ordering offices need not seek further competition, synopsize the requirement, or consider small business programs.

The proposed rule included the following statement:

This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(B) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

According to the background statement in FAC 2001-24, the following were among the purposes of the final rule:

Clarifies that competition shall not be sought outside the Federal Supply Schedules? , and

Adds additional language to allow for consideration of socio-economic status when identifying the potential competitors for an order? .

There was no mention of changing policy about the applicability of the Rule of Two. However, among the comments discussed by the councils, I found the following:

1. Comment: Ordering offices need not seek further competition. Several respondents stated that the phrase ?Ordering offices shall not seek further competition? is confusing or misleading. In addition, the requirement that agencies need not seek further competition, synopsize the requirement, or consider small business programs when placing orders or issuing Blanket Purchase Agreements under the schedule ordering procedures did not seem fair.

Councils' response: Partially concur. The Councils determined that although the language was clear, an additional explanation would be added. The Councils clarified the language at 8.404(a) to indicate that ordering activities need not seek competition outside of the Federal Supply Schedules. Agencies must follow the procedures of Subpart 8.4 to ensure compliance with the requirement for full and open competition as implemented under the Multiple Award Schedules program.

* * *

6. Comment: Small business. Several respondents raised concerns regarding the ability of agencies to focus their consideration of contractors and their competitions for orders on small businesses. In particular, the Federal Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) Directors Interagency Council commented that the rule of two should apply to schedule orders and that all orders between $2,500 and $100,000 be restricted to small businesses. In addition, another respondent stated that the language regarding the applicability of Part 19 of the FAR needed to be clarified. Another respondent suggested that a 10 percent price evaluation advantage be given to small businesses when agencies are placing orders.

Councils' response: The Councils do not concur with the comment that the rule of two should apply to orders under the schedules program. Further, the Councils do not concur with the suggestion that all orders under $100,000 be set-aside for small business. The Councils concluded that these suggestions would fundamentally alter the schedules program in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall program by increasing the administrative burden on agencies without having demonstrated that the changes would, in fact, benefit small business over the long term. In addition, the basic statutory authority for the program provides that contracts and orders be open to all sources. Creating a set-aside for all such orders would be inconsistent with the program's basic operating authorities. In addition, the Councils, for the same general reasons, do not agree with the request for a 10 percent evaluation preference for small business.

However, the Councils did examine ways in which the rule could foster even greater small business participation than that which already exists. The Councils added language at FAR 8.405-5(B) that provides that ?Ordering activities may consider socio-economic status when identifying contractor(s) for consideration or competition for award of an order or BPA.? This language provides the flexibility for agencies to conduct their market research focusing on small business concerns and providing them greater opportunity to compete for orders.

The Councils also clarified the language at FAR 8.405-5(a) regarding the applicability of FAR Part 19 and added language that reminds agencies that when reporting an order for purposes of credit towards their socio-economic goals, the ordering agency may only take credit if the awardee meets the size standard that corresponds to the work performed.

Thus, Carl's "analogy" fails. FAC 2001-24 did not change the policy about the applicability of the Rule of Two to FSS contracts. It clarified existing policy. It is a waste of peoples' time to dredge things up "from memory" that have not been scrutinized carefully and verified.

As for the protest Carl mentions -- it was FitNet Purchasing Alliance, B-309911, 2007 CPF ? 201, November 2, 2007. It was not reconsidered by GAO nor was the protest filed with the Court of Federal Claims.

FitNet was preceded by Information Ventures, Inc., B-291952, 2003 CPD ? 101, May 14, 2003, which preceded FAR 2001-24 by more than a year. The GAO's digest of that decision reads as follows:

Protest that agency improperly canceled presolicitation notice of intent to procure services under small business set-aside solicitation in order to instead solicit quotations from Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors is denied, where agency reasonably determined that such services were available under the FSS; agencies need not consider small business programs when purchasing from the FSS.

In the text of the decision, you can find the following:

Information Ventures argues that the agency's purchase from the FSS is contrary to public policy and, specifically, that it violates Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) ? 19.502-2(B) (the so-called ?rule of two?). That provision generally requires an agency to set aside acquisitions for small businesses where there is a reasonable expectation of receiving fair market price offers from at least two responsible small business concerns. Protester's Comments, Mar. 20, 2003, at 4.

This argument is without merit. There is no applicable statute or regulation that required the agency to set the requirement here aside for small businesses in lieu of purchasing from FSS vendors. Indeed, FAR ? 8.404(a) provides that:

... when placing orders under Federal Supply Schedules, ordering offices need not seek further competition, synopsize the requirement, make a separate determination of fair and reasonable pricing, or consider small business programs . . . .

This provision obviates the need for agencies to apply small business set-aside procedures where, as here, they are purchasing from the FSS. Nat'l Office Sys., Inc., B-274785, Jan. 6, 1997, 97-1 CPD ? 12 at 3. Thus, there was nothing improper in the agency's not setting this requirement aside for small businesses.

Information Ventures was cited favorably this year by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in footnote 7 of K-Lak Corp, v. U.S., 93 Fed. Cl. 749 (2010):

The court notes, however, that to the extent the court decides that the Air Force's decision to procure credit reports via the FSS rather than using an 8(a) procurement was justified, K-LAK, a non-FSS contractor, would lack standing to challenge any particular orders from Equifax or other FSS providers. See Info. Ventures, 2003 WL 21089149 (no statute or regulation required the agency to consider small businesses in lieu of purchasing from the FSS); In re FitNet Purchasing Alliance, B-309911, 2007 CPD ? 201, 2007 WL 3257012 (Comp.Gen.2007) (?Given that the decision was made to procure via the FSS, FitNet, which does not hold an FSS contract, is not an interested party to protest the terms of the solicitation.? (internal citation removed)).

As I have already pointed out, like FAR 8.404(a) for FSS contracts, 10 USC 2304c(a) states that agencies need not seek further competition when placing within-scope orders against task order contracts.

Finally, no one has ignored Carl?s assertion that his principle applies only to nonmandatory contracts. In fact, that assertion has been mentioned several times by persons seeking to understand his reasoning in that regard. I even went so far as to posit my own theory for his reasoning. (Post #71) To the best of my recollection, he has never clearly explained his reasoning about that to anyone?s satisfaction (with emphasis on "clearly"), which is why Jacques and Don have kept asking him about it. He simply keeps saying it, over and over and over again. I see no point in bringing it up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI--I left a telephone voice message with the FAR Case representative on 1/7/11, but to date have received no response. I also followed that up with an email request for his opinion (1/12/11), but received no reply. The email provided him a link to this discussion for purpose of showing the different interpretations/opinions regarding this matter.

Great in depth discussion. As I said earlier, I think which ever way I go I'll have a lot of ammo to back up my position (more than enough).

Share this post


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

×