Although a J&A is not required to award an 8a Direct Award, what is the consensus about modifications to a direct award. For example, adding work that is essentially out of scope. Is a J&A not required because it's an 8a?

I can't find a reference anywhere that speaks to this specifically.

Surely work can't just be added and added with no justification....

 

 

 

If the added work is outside the scope of the original contract, the new work cannot be added by a change order, but is considered a new procurement.  Therefore, the first question that needs to be answered is whether the new effort has been offered to and accepted by the SBA for accomplishment by an 8(a) concern.   Further, because a J&A is not required for award of an 8(a) contract, no J&A would be required for the new procurement.

As long as you're still within the 8(a) guidelines, a J&A is not needed -- see FAR 6.302-5( c )( 2 )( iii ).

If Part 6 applies to your procurement, a J&A is not required so long as the action is less than or equal to $22M (6.302-5(c)(2)(iii)).  If the requirement can be set aside under 8(a) program, then the same authority would apply and a J&A is not required.  However, I think the out of scope work would have to be offered to the SBA to document the fact the out of scope work will also covered under the 8(a) program.

However, if the out of scope work is not accepted under the 8(a) program and you believe there is a basis justify not competing it, then a justification would need to be prepared under a separate authority, likely 6.302-1.

test  FAR 6.302-5(c)(2)(ii)

(a) (c) (C) (d)

I just noticed this.  The software must have been changed.  No more smiley faces.

On 8/24/2016 at 6:52 AM, bob7947 said:

test  FAR 6.302-5(c)(2)(ii)

(a) (c) (C) (d)

I just noticed this.  The software must have been changed.  No more smiley faces.

What about ( b ) making following text bold? 

(b) bold

(b) not bold

Thank you all. I had the same reference it's just odd to add work that may be out of scope and not think of a JA.

On 8/23/2016 at 10:47 AM, Todd Davis said:

If Part 6 applies to your procurement, a J&A is not required so long as the action is less than or equal to $22M (6.302-5(c)(2)(iii)).  If the requirement can be set aside under 8(a) program, then the same authority would apply and a J&A is not required.  However, I think the out of scope work would have to be offered to the SBA to document the fact the out of scope work will also covered under the 8(a) program.

I agree that no J&A is required, and that the requirement should be offered to the SBA (see, for example FAR 19.804-4) but you should note that if the new requirement exceeds the $ 7/4 M thresholds at FAR 19.805-1(a)(2), then the SBA will normally accept it into the 8(a) program as a sole-source only under the conditions listed at FAR 19.805-1( b ), i.e. there is not a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from 2 or more 8(a) firms or the contract is with an ANC or Indian tribe.

Jamaal:

I tried that but did not get a bold.  Here is the problem.  This software editor is something called bbcodes.  Call it Artificial Ignorance (AI).  The editor adds its own punctuation as it sees fit.  It particularly hates brackets [ ] with a letter inside and likes to add bold, italics, underline, cross-out, etc to the following text.  Vern was the first to identify this unwanted feature and I had to edit one of his blog entries to delete the unwanted punctuation.  

It picks on the SmallGovCon blog the most and I have to edit the entries quite often.  The software company knows about this and it is going to dump that editor in the future.

There are different software packages on the market.  This one is comprehensive and the updates are continuous.  I keep it because I believe its strengths outweigh its weaknesses.