bja

In IFBs for construction that are valued very close to the SAT (either over or under) it seems confusing to me on how to best deal with inclusion/exclusion of clauses/provisions that are required based upon their relationship to the SAT. For example: The following FAR clauses do not apply if the bid amount exceeds $150,000: 52.228-13 Alternative Payment Protections 52.243-5 Changes and Changed Conditions 52.249-1 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed Price)(Short Form) The following FAR clauses do not apply if the bid is at or below $150,000: 52.222-4 Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act-Overtime 52.222-40 Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act 52.223-6 Drug-Free Workplace 52.228-12 Prospective Subcontractor Request for Bonds 52.228-14 Irrevocable Letter of Credit 52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bonds - Construction 52.243-4 Changes 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government and Alt I (for construction) What is the best way to deal with a scenario where the IGE is $149,000 ..... Include the clauses/provisions required under SAT? What if then the bids are received above the SAT?....execute a contract modification to remove those you thought would apply (under SAT) and add in those that now do apply (above SAT)? How do you deal with the issue of a bid guarantee (that would be required for bids above $150,000) if you originally believed the value to be below SAT and not required? This wasn't a concern when the SAT was $100,000 and the disclosure of magnitudes required by FAR 36.204 were in line with one another. The delimma seemed to become more complicated when the SAT was raised to $150,000 and the magnitude range remained "between $100,000 and $250,000". Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you for the reference. It was indeed helpful. "Business judment" was my term.......The contract indicates the contract holders will be given "fair opportunity" for each task order. However, as I understand it, fair opportunity is not defined for orders under $5.5 million (all of our orders are under $5.5 million). The selection crieteria in FAR 36.6 was followed to make the contract award for each. Just tryng to establish the correct/best method of granting fair opportunity for each task order since it is not defined. The information provided in other discussion is very helpful.

I have three IDIQ contracts for AE services that were awarded in accordance with the procedures in FAR subpart 36.6. Regarding ordering procedures...........FAR 16.500 (d) states "The statutory multiple award preference implemented by this subpart does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in Subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for architect-engineer services using the procedures in this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with Subpart 36.6." Since multiple awards were made, do I have to grant each of the AE contractors a fair opportunity to compete for each task order? Or can I simply make a business judgement and award each task order without issuing to all three contractors each time? If I am reading it correctly, I have a training manual from an AE class that I attended that says I do have to compete each task order, but it seems otherwise by reading FAR and talking to other agencies.... Any feedback would be appreciated.