In reviewing RFO FAR subpart 8.4 and GSAM/R 538.71 yesterday, I observed two changes from the current FAR that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere:

1. The term "limited source justification" is apparently being retired and replaced with simply "sole source justification." I think this is a mistake, as the former is a term of art that tells the experienced practitioner which procedures apply, and the latter is a generic term commonly used by practitioners to describe any justification for proceeding without competition regardless of the applicable procedures.
   

2. There are no longer any designated approval authorities for sole source justifications exceeding the SAT. GSAM 538.7104-3(a) specifies that the CO is the approval authority for acquisitions that do not exceed the SAT, but 538.7104-3(b) is silent regarding acquisitions exceeding the SAT. I assume this is an oversight and that the approval authorities will eventually match those found in RFO subparts 6.1 and 16.5. But it would be a glaring oversight.

Has anyone else here noticed these oddities? Does anyone have additional insights into them?

2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Does anyone have additional insights into them?

Observation.

"Sole Source" is defined in the RFO at Part 2 so the term applies as defined throughout the FAR (RFO). So I could agree that the "limited source justification" is no longer an appropriate term.

However I am concerned, of sorts like you, that folks must draw a conclusion that the approval levels for a sole source, a subset of Exception to Other Than Full and Open Competition, is that as stated in FAR Part 6. This is especially true where GSAM at 538.7104-3 explicity states that FAR Part 6 does not apply. If the intent is to have the approval levels be in concert with FAR (RFO) 6.104 then it would seem that the GSAM language should state that FAR (RFO) Part 6 does not apply "except" when doing a sole source.

As an aside if I were other than GSA I would not look to GSAM Part 506 for approval levels for a sole source I would be looking at that which applies to my agency. Something like this. First the FAR (RFO), then the agency supplement or policy.

Yeah, something is missing. GSA needs to clarify. The regulation either needs to specify approval levels above the contracting officer for justifications exceeding the SAT or clarify the approval level is still the CO but only after considering responses received from the publication requirement under 538.7104-3.

Since MAS ordering procedures are now in GSAM, it’s GSA’s call.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Since MAS ordering procedures are now in GSAM, it’s GSA’s call.

Granted following the regulatory guidance at FAR (RFO) subpart 1.2.

22 hours ago, C Culham said:

"Sole Source" is defined in the RFO at Part 2 so the term applies as defined throughout the FAR (RFO).

Yet the terms “Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition” and "Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity" remain and are required to be written on the documents themselves when using part 6 or subpart 16.5, respectively. It's inconsistent.

I also just realized that the GSAM doesn't specify formatting or contents:

538.7104-3 Sole source justifications.

...

(2) Content requirements. Justifications must be in writing and include sufficient detail and supporting rationale to support the exception used.

42 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

It's inconsistent.

Makes one wonder if, prior to recodifying the FAR to implement the entirety of the RFO such matters will be clarified? Or, will there be the first in an endless trail of circulars? Change will always occur but one would hope the out of the box "new" version doesnot demand immediate correction.

Seems "agile, effective and efficient" as a standard is a mixed bag and as they say haste makes waste.