I am exploring the possibility on changing the ceiling capacity of our single award IDIQ 8A sole source contract.  The current contractor is actually an approved NAC 8A and we awarded with the SBA under the $4m threshold even with their designation.  Now two years in, the programs estimate for capacity has been significantly increased.  Can an agency, with SBA approval increase the single award IDIQ sole source 8A contract capacity without an J&A based upon the sole source and 8A NAC designation to say $5m? Looking for any thoughts on this.   

The threshold for competition is $4 Million?  Just do the J&A.  Or, award a second contract under $4 Million to the same 8(a) company.  Better yet, just of the J&A.

No no no ji's response lacks consideration of applicable regulation.

Consider 13 CFR 124.506.

Consider the basic premise as supported by 8a regulations....once an 8a always 8a. 

Why go through the girations of J&A if SBA agrees.  Just move forward with ceiling increase.

I agree, ji20874 why do a J&A if a NAC is not held to that threshold. 

I answered as I did because you introduced a $4 Million threshold in your original posting, and I admit I didn't know what "NAC" meant.  But I am now supposing that you meant "ANC" instead of "NAC."  If so, you already know that SBA concurrence is all you need based on FAR 19.805-1(b)(2), and your original posting seems to suggest that SBA concurrence is on the bag.  I also answered as I did because I am amazed at the gyrations people will go through to avoid doing a J&A, even when that is the easiest and fastest solution, and the SBA sometimes has required a J&A in order to deal with the $4 Million threshold -- but here, the $4 Million threshold doesn't apply, and SBA doesn't need any help getting around it (because of FAR 19.805-1(b)(2)).

The FAR uses the terminology "concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation."  13 CFR § 124.506 uses the terminology "concern owned and controlled by an Indian Tribe or an ANC" and "tribally-owned or ANC-owned concern."  I did a search at www.sba.gov for "NAC" and I got "Sorry, we didn't find any results that matched your search."  A search of the FAR for "NAC" at www.acquisition.gov similarly produced no results.  I recommend the use of ANC instead of NAC.

My post offered references to help in thinking about how one should consider needing a J&A.  Now let me try with  thoughts and no specific reference.

The premise of the J&A is based on CICA.  And on this premise not only would a J&A be needed but synopsizing of same.   In this specific case CICA is already out the door and so was was synposizing for the original contract.  The contract is a 8a sole source and again once 8a always 8a for the specific requirement or need.  Now you want to increase scope (ceiling) and SBA agrees.

Do it and move on, NAC, ANC or whatever, move on.

CONewEngland, 

Just a suggestion.  Why limit yourself to a small increase from $4 to $5 million, if those are realistic?  You might be coming back and doing the same thing again.  It seems like successful IDIQ contracts often go way above initial estimates.  No harm in a large increase, even if you don’t use it all.

The $4M restriction applies to the contract award, but it does not restrict the KO from exceeding that cap after award unless it is an obvious attempt to game that restriction.  The regulations themselves only speak to the contract award amount. 

If the contractor is not an ANC or other tribal entity, then two years after award the KO can modify the contract as high as needed so long at the SBA is notified of the modification no later than the contractor is notified of the modification along with a statement that the modification was not contemplated prior the award of the contract.  

If the contractor is an ANC, then the cap is not $4M, it is $22M per FAR 19.808-1, so there should be no angst about modifying the contract up to that level.