joel hoffman

Public bids, using Part 14 of the FAR are simply that. Publicly opened and publicly recorded (see FAR 14.4 and related agency supplements). It’s been around for many, many decades. It was the normal way of receiving sealed bids when I graduated from college in 1971, both in Federal as well as State and local government contracting. See also 14.404 Rejection of bids. See also 14.404-1 (c). Under certain circumstances, under 14.404-1(e) and (f), the government may even convert a cancelled bid process to an RFP competitive negotiations with the original bidders using appropriate and applicable facets of Part 15 procedures. I was assigned to do that at least three times. Understandably, the bidders were very unhappy - especially the lowest bidders - after all the bids and line item pricing had been made publicly available. Thats another story…

Well, then. Funds were apparently available at the time that the option was exercised.

The GAO decision that Carl cited was a protest of a competitive 8(A) “set-aside” for A/E services where competition was limited to eligible 8(a) firms (consistent with FAR 19.805), not a sole source 8(a) acquisition. The selection was evidently made of the most qualified firm, not a single, pre-selected, sole source firm. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-193874 Thus the procedure was in harmony with both the 8(a) program and the “Brooks Bill”

Did you see that the requirement to discuss with at least three A/E firms after reviewing their qualifications is a specific statutory requirement of the Brooks Architectural Engineering Act?

I have a different viewpoint. I asked the OP if his/her organization is conflating multiple year length of the contract effort with more than one program funding year with respect to “multi-year contracting”. He/she confirmed it and said that it involves more contracts than the subject of this thread. Even though the OP’s organization uses no-year and four year funding, if the period of performance (for a current need) exceeds a year, they are calling it multi-year contracting… And the FAR and many other references are poorly written in the detailed discussion of multi year contracting by not differentiating between “more than one year” and “more than one program year”. The simply worded phrase “more than one year” is ambiguous. As written, it can refer to a contract period with a “length” of more than one year. Or it could refer to requiring separate, appropriated funding for follow-on year(s). One has to hunt to learn the context of the phrase“ more than one year”.

Thanks, Carl.

It seems that you are being told essentially that a contract for non-severable services that is fully funded up-front and that takes more than one year (12 month period) to accomplish requires the approval of your Head of the Contracting Agency. That seems to me to be ridiculous. I know that the literal reading of the FAR might lead someone to that conclusion. But as Carl stated, FAR 17.103 Definitions begins with the definition of cancelation and describes the meaning of a multi-year contract as: “Multi-year contract means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services for more than 1, but not more than 5, program years.” Stop reading right there. Does your requirement span more than one “program year”? Here is a definition of “program year” from DAU: “DEFINITION The fiscal year (FY) in which authorization was provided and in which funds were appropriated for a particular program, regardless of the FY in which funds for that program might be obligated. SOURCE DoD 7000.14-R (Volume 2A Chapter 1)” The same source differentiates between “fully funding of procurement programs” (beginning on page 1-26) and “multi-year procurements” (beginning on page I-29). For practical purposes, if there is a bonafide need for a two year study and the appropriate funds - not from separate program years- are available to fully fund the study, why would the HCA have to approve such a contract?

Can you expand upon the nature of the “requirement”?

… and have them explain their reasoning for their answer too.

So do I. Good.

I’m not sure whether this is a pre-award question or post-award, contract administration question. It concerns the “contractors workforce”, although not the “contracting workforce.” The answer depends upon whether it is pre-award or post-award as well as answers to the questions raised above by respondents.

Yes, I’d start there first. That ought to be obvious. Of course, I realize that direct communications (especially oral communications) between contract administrators/KO and contractors is often an anomaly these days.

I’m also curious, If your employees will essentially be stuck on base with no off-duty transportation provided for, was this addressed in your proposal or otherwise considered before award?

Therefore, I’d also say “Read the Contract” as a whole. * added by me Echoing ji: **added by me It seems to me from the limited information so far (e.g., what are the XYZ guidelines(?), any pre-award inquiries(?), any pre-award discussions or clarifications(?), price proposal details(?), etc.), that the government has stated its intentions in the “contract”. Since this is an awarded contract, I think that the contractor should have been aware, before award, the meaning of the statement “Housing and other logistical support will be provided by the Government.... in accordance with XYZ guidelines.” This is a CPFF contract. Therefore, it was apparently a negotiated competitive or sole source acquisition. Why is this issue being raised now, after award? @ReadTheContract848, were you or others in your company aware of the stated requirement for government accommodations in the solicitation and what the JTR actually includes in addition to per diem rate limits, as applicable to the stated “government accommodations”? You indicated that your personal “perspective” contradicts the stated solicitation and subsequent contract requirement… Something in the pre-award process for this CPFF contract is either unspoken here or seemingly amiss…

Is this a hypothetical situation or a current contract? May 1, 2024 has already passed. Is the May 1, 2025 start date a current date for the option? Theoretically, there is not a “rule” against this, to my knowledge. However, this would skip one day in the middle of the workweek in April 2005. If it is the existing term of the contract option, I imagine the contractor would have priced any costs that it would incur that day somewhere in the current contract price. If you want to change the start of the option period to include a one day delay, you can’t unilaterally do that. You wouldn’t be awarding it according to the current terms and conditions. This would require a supplemental agreement, in my opinion.

Maybe FPRS, Federal Procurement Regulations System for Civilian Agencies, which was replaced by the FAR?

“We” were the Mobile (AL) District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. In the 1990’s, I was Chief of the Construction Division Contract Administration office, which among other duties, negotiated all sole source 8(a) construction contracts, conducted all Part 15 competitively negotiated construction source selections as well as some technical type service contract source selections. Three of my employees, who negotiated 8(a) contracts and I worked directly with the Chief of Contracting and his other KO’s for those contracts. ”We” coordinated closely with the Atlanta Regional SBA office.

Whether or not a firm protests would likely depend upon the circumstances. Also, whether you are cancelling the acquisition or simply rejecting and replacing the firm. @LindaF, the original poster, didn’t explain which scenario she is asking about. We occasionally rejected sole source 8(a) proposals for various reasons and in coordination with SBA, to replace the SBA’s nominated firm with another firm. Never Protested. We once cancelled a sole source 8(a) procurement for an urban street overpass at a railroad crossing in northern Mississippi, due to unreasonable pricing and unsuccessful negotiations to reduce it. It was also obvious that the arrangement was a front for a couple of non-disadvantaged subcontractors. We converted it to a competitive small business set-aside. The resulting contract was something like 40% lower in price than the original, sole source Proposal. ———————————— Oddly, one of the original proposed subs apparently confused me with somebody else. He called me during the second RFP pre-proposal period to ask if I was “still interested” in being a sub for the converted acquisition. I informed him that I was the COE person that he had negotiated with on the 8(a) procurement. He became flustered, apologized and ended the conversation!

Deleted. Thanks, Bob

So, you don’t know if they were professional Architect/Engineer services, as generally defined in FAR 2.101 and 36.6 for such activities as the planning, mapping, design and engineering services for real property, also including soils engineering, roads, airports, dams, levees, etc. that are required to be performed or approved by a person licensed, registered, or certified to provide those services. That is versus engineering services for machines, materials, instruments, processes, aeronautics, astronautics non-building (or e.g., non-flood control) systems, software and hardware, etc.

What kind of “ engineering services”. There are all kinds of “engineering services”…

Ask the assigned/appropriated point of contract for this acquisition. It doesn’t matter what interpretation we give you in this Forum.

Thanks, Bob

I read the Snyder Docket that Bob provided the link to above at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-108/299752/20240205125638057_Snyder Joint Appendix.pdf It appears that Mayor Snyder was prosecuted for soliciting and accepting a bribe(a) from the owners of a Peterbilt dealership for the purchase of two sanitation trucks for the City of Portage, Indiana. In addition, there were indictments for other bribes or gratuities. I didn’t see where the link includes the outcome of the case concerning the Peterbilt trucks. There were several days of testimony concerning the alleged nature of payments to Snyder for various alleged consulting services as well as interactions and communications between the parties. Im not a lawyer.

Interesting!