I know that the HUBZone price evaluation preference does not apply to cases where all fair and reasonable offers are accepted. However, would it apply to the case of a multi-award full-and-open contract where the evaluation is by LPTA, but where the solicitation sets in advance the number of awards?

Also, does the full force of FAR 19.1307 still apply in cases where clause 52.218-4 was not included in the solicitation?

FAR 19.1307, "Price evaluation preference for HUB Zone small business concerns," says, in pertinent part:

(a) The price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns shall be used in acquisitions conducted using full and open competition. The preference shall not be used—(1) Where price is not a selection factor so that a price evaluation preference would not be considered (e.g., Architect/Engineer acquisitions); or 2) Where all fair and reasonable offers are accepted (e.g., the award of multiple award schedule contracts).

Now, where does that say that it will not apply "to the case of a multi-award full-and-open contract where the evaluation is by LPTA, but where the solicitation sets in advance the number of awards"?

It doesn't. So, why would you suspect that it applies in such a case? Is it the fact that the solicitation sets in advance the number of awards? If so, do you see any mention of that in the regulation? I don't. What have I missed? Is there something in your agency FAR supplement? In other words, what is it that prompted your question?

From a reading of 19.307, it would appear that there isn't any exclusion for a MATOC. How do you make award to multiple firms using LPTA? Seven awards to the seven lowest priced offers for example?

As to your second question , if it is a required clause, it would be prudent and perhaps necessary to issue an amendment because this could affect both offered prices as well as the effect of the self-performance requirement in said clause. Seems like industry knowing ahead of time of the pricing and self-performance conditions would affect competition strategy, as well as business decisions on whether or not to participate.

Thanks for the replies. Yes, lowest offers.

I did find GAO addressed my second question a few times already, and so I should have checked first before asking. Here is one of them: http://www.gao.gov/products/A82202#mt=e-report

Even mandatory clauses which were not included in a solicitation are not included by force of law if omitted from the solicitation.

Tyrone, what is the basis for your last sentence in your post number 4?

Retread:

See QuesTech, Inc., GAO B-255095, 94-1 CPD ¶ 82:

The “Christian Doctrine” provides only for incorporation, by law, of certain mandatory contract clauses into otherwise validly awarded government contracts; it does not stand for the proposition that provisions are similarly incorporated, by law, into solicitations. See, e.g., American Imaging Servs., Inc.—Recon., B–250861.2, Jan. 5, 1993, 93–1 CPD ¶ 13; Data-products New England, Inc. et al., B–246149.3 et al., Feb. 26, 1992, 92–1 CPD ¶ 231; Diemaco, Inc., B–246065, Oct. 31, 1991, 91–2 CPD ¶ 414.

The Court of Federal Claims does not appear to have ruled similarly. However, in an old decision, its predecessor, the U.S. Claims Court, refused to apply the Christian Doctrine to a solicitation. See Grade-Way Construction, Inc, v, U.S., 7 Cl. Ct. 263 (1985).

Vern, I read Tyrone's post to be saying that mandatory clauses are not included in a contract under the Christian Doctrine if the clause was omitted from the solicitation. I think he needs to clarify what he meant.