C Culham

Ok on closer read I better understand the question. As a call is the procurement action why couldn't a CO utilize FAR 13.106-1(b) to do so. Use a single source determination per call. Or, make a single source determination when establishing the BPA.

Find this... B 294974.6 Logan LLC 12/1/2006

I find this thread to be most interesting. There is an indication of a long term failure of RFP's that provide that multiple contractors have failed to perform. This is coupled with no indication of the exact work, the magnitude of the work, how the work is defined (PWS or otherwise) and the comments seem to be provided by someone that is a program office person and not a CO or COR. The individual has asked how to improve the RFP process to improve contract performance. Based on the limited information how does one know that it is the RFP process and not that of contract administration or even a skewed view of what the contract is to accomplish. I have especially wondered about the whole matter based on this in the original post "on who a contractor puts into a position" and follow-up comments that seems to provide that there is no key personnel clause in the contrat. Person put in a position? Is not an outcome being acquired? How does person matter within the scope of the work defined if there is not key personnel clause? I do not need a reply to my thoughts but my comment for @goviegogo it is that I (again based on limited info) think you are looking in the wrong place. You should be looking at contract administration and the relationship you have with your contracting shop on how contract performance are meeting both the terms and conditions and program expectations of what the accomplishment of contract effort actually is to be. I say this especially noting that you express that the problem is in my terms systemic.

You have gone full circle..a BPA is not an "acquisition". I would offer that even a BPA that creates a call being a firm offer by the government doesnot make the BPA an acquisition. It is simply the establishment of a charge account that gives rules it does not buy anything. As the OP has mentioned Air Force see this https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/5119.201-general-policy. Edited just now to add this reference that I was reminded of in reading another thread. See discussion of Blanket Purchase Agreements in it. https://tjaglcs.army.mil/documents/35956/202351/2023+Contract+Attorneys+Deskbook.pdf/3f1c4d3b-1c54-d3b2-523f-1c37fb063637?t=1690991215366

I do but that does not make the BPA a contract, the call is the contract that references clauses. Heck you could put in zero references to the BPA in the call except the hoped for pricing. Remember it is a micro purchase and as such in the strict view of a FAR BPA the vendor has the right of acceptance of offer. If an agency makes calls a unilateral right of the government my view is they have in fact bastardized the FAR guiding principles and created a requirements or IDIQ contract.

I am not. Sorry I was not clear. Do what the clause paragraph says and use Part 49 as guidance to do so. What I am at odds with is the OP should I have done so a long time ago!

No sir not if issued pursuant to FAR part 13. Now I might agree some uninformed agency person might confuse strict terms as used in the FAR but with this said... "In contrast, a BPA is generally not a contract, and a BPA does not obligate the agency to enter into future contracts with the vendor. FAR sect. 13.303-1(a); see also Logan, LLC, B-294974.6, Dec. 1, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 188 at 2-3 n.2.[5]" Reference GAO Decision B-401988.2 that I referenced in a previous post.

No! This would create a bigger mess of a mess. The OP should of, and should now, issue a written partial T4C of the order and then follow guidance of FAR part 49 to determine settlement. I fear, on the premise expressed by Joel and a pure read of paragraph l of 52.212-4 that the government is now at a disadvantage yet regardless partial T4C is the route to take. To Jamaal's point it is not a reduction in scope it a partial T4C as there are CLINs to deal with or in other words segregal elements of the work to be terminated.

But they should not. Come on a million in micro purchases compared to what almost agency does in total procurements is nonsense. Clearly folks are not following the money with regard to total commitment to small business. The premise is false in my view.

Yes, by regulation some agencies have defined Key Personnel. See the HUDAR by example. Otherwise you are correct of sorts -Key Personnel are those personnel that are subjectively defined by a specific procurement. Bottomline it is "up to us" (you).

I agree. Let me pull in another reference - FAR part 19 - where I find no reference that the Small Business Act applies to procurements at or below the micro-purchase level. With regard to limits I did not do exhaustive research as I kept coming back to a BPA is not a contract which seems to be a well founded conclusion of case law. All in all if it were me and I was developing the instructions I would hold to the plain meaning of the FAR that if the need is for the establishment of a BPA where no call under the BPA shall exceed the micro-purchase level a 2579 is not required of the BPA(s) nor the call issued pursuant to the BPA(s). For what it is worth here are some references that may help you (Christal) decide what to do..... FAR 19.201(c)(15) - Ensures agency purchases using the Governmentwide purchase card that are greater than the micro-purchase threshold and less than the simplified acquisition threshold were made in compliance with the Small Business Act... 41 USC 1902: Procedures applicable to purchases below micro-purchase threshold especially paragraph (c) 15 USC Chapter 14A, Section 631, paragraph (j). 15 USC Chapter 14A, Section 644, paragraph (j) https://www.moore.army.mil/tenant/micc/content/pdf/MICC Desk Book.pdf?12JUN2020 See Page 133 https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/5119.201-general-policy. I see nothing regarding FAR part 13 BPA's as exception to the micro-purchase threshold. https://www.gao.gov/products/b-401988.2 Distinction of a BPA to a IDIQ. https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-417500,b-417500.2.pdf Just an interesting read that in my personal view has some relationship to the matter your are wrestling with. Good luck!

I have a slightly different twist. FAR 13.5 provides that FAR part 12 applies (FAR 13.500(b)). FAR 12.201 allows for use of FAR 13, 14 or 15 for solicitation, evaluation and award. So the question is, to answer the OPs question, what FAR part was used for solicitation, evaluation, and award. If FAR part 15, then 15.506 may well apply. The OP could determine this in one easy step. Was the solicitation a Request for Quotes (RFQ) or a Request for Proposals (RFP)? The response the OP received from the agency is poorly written in my view.

Discretion! While I disagree with Neil's manipulation of the regs to justify the form bureaucrats can ask or even demand it. Overreaction to FAR part 19 in my view. But of course facts might sway me but the facts must be very convincing.

I disagree. A BPA is not a contract, and does not require appropriated funds to establish.

Have you considered partial termination for convenience (52.212-4(l)? It is the governments unilateral right to do so.

How many CLINS?

I would hope that the discussion with your auditors and thoughts to a policy considers FAR 43.101 and the definition of "Effective Date". Additionally I suggest reading general references regarding "backdating" which includes references to "effective date" versus "signature" date. I would suggest that in FAR related contracting it could be reasonable, based on fact, that signature might occur after "effective" date with regard to a contract itself. I do find the raising of the matter interesting with regard to use of "systems" for the solicitation/contract process. While one consequence of backdating may enter into the world of funding matters have not systems been created to insure proper fund management related to obligation of contracts and modifications? If the push of a button by the proper contracting official today legitimately "obligates" the money in the system but the CO signs on a piece of paper (mod or contract award form) a week later I would pose the question is there really an issue? Again it would seem "effective date" is the real issue.

Thank you to Vern for sharing. I would like to recommend that this and other such sharing that Vern provides in response to thread discussions be posted at the "What Happened" topic area with specific reference to the topic area and title of the discussion it is related to. Doing so seems in keeping with the intent of "What Happened". Thanks in advance Bob for considering.

@Retreadfed Acknowledging this is a beginners forum as well as the fact that we have little to go on I just wonder in a FFP scenario for the actual effort, absent travel, is not subcontractor travel if a direct need to accomplish the work the same as prime travel or in other words travel to get the work accomplished?

As I continue to read this discussion thread I get the feeling there is the here and now with a specific situation and how you might address for the future. I say this per the mention of the SF-44. Here is a thought moving forward, the government purchase card by some references is called the Government Commercial Purchase Card (GCPC), reference FAR 13.301. Implication is therefore it is used to purchase commercial products and services. Usually, at least based on my understanding, purchase of the needs just in time or now. As a previous commenter provided purchasing future services might be questionable yet I could see the need sometimes. So if there is a need, along with the need, as demonstrated in this thread, for some clauses to protect the delivery of future services, why not, as allowed by FAR 13.301(c)(3) have a simple order using say a SF-1449 or something like it (reference FAR 12.204), include a clause or two and provide that payment will be made by GCPC. There might be argument about inclusion of FAR clause 52.212-4 in total yet consider both FAR 12.102 and tailoring of 52.212-4 as allowed by FAR 12.302. Of course you would have to have a willing vendor to do so, therefore just a thought on my part for consideration. Sample of extending this thought - This order provides for both the purchase of and payment of the following services via the Government Commercial Purchase Card.

Thank you. As to your questions my response are guesses as it should be the agency that provides their view of what they are hoping for per the solicitation wording and the CLIN setup. Noting this my thoughts are.... General - Has the agency stated FAR provision 52.215-1 with its Alt 1 in the RFP where they affirm that there will be discussions? If so and if you make the competitive range remember you will have opportunity to discuss your questions and realign you proposal based on answers. If not with Alt 1 then remember the agency might award without discussions. RFP - I always get a little skittish when terms are interchanged. You say RFP, then refer to "bid" and then by my own experience if the agency is looking for a something they have deemed to be "commercial" pursuant to the FAR it might be a RFQ. If the latter it could be 52.215-1 is not in the solicitation and 52.212-1 is. This said I would be combing the solicitation to determine if the agency has said anything about intentions to have discussions or not. Cost reimbursable CLIN - I suspect the agency is actually saying "cost" basis or in other words no fee is going to be allowed on travel. I know I am mincing details but pursuant to FAR Part 16 there are actually several forms of "cost reimbursement". Travel - Sometimes I have seen where there is ceiling or a Not To Exceed on travel costs and travel must be approved by the government. I really do not need to know if the solicitation you have provides such limits just pointing out as something to look for. FAR 31.205-46 - Might want to take a look at this reference. One would suppose that travel as a cost CLIN the principles in this citation would be applicable. Question 1 - A good question for the Marines yet your approach makes sense based on what I have seen agencies do. Question 2 - Approach is sound based on limited info. Hope I have helped and I agree with formerfed I would be asking the agency CO in writing.

Why has the Q&A period already passed?

I necessarily do not disagree. Others will. In the end I suggest one on one with the vendor. If they are silent dispute the GPC charges and be comfortable that you have done the best you can!

I appreciate the reference to T4D which I overlooked but I am not so sure Let It Go is appropriate counsel. @govt2310 The GPC program does have a dispute process which I would suggest you look into. Some agencies have a policy document that addresses. If you can not find readily try an internet search "how to dispute a GPC charge" and you might find you agency's policy. Here are some samples for you (below), some might be dated. Also based on further research the Nash Cibinic article probably deals with this FAR reference - 32.1108 - which you might want to read but provides little help on process. https://smartpay.gsa.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/14-00138_508LR FINAL .pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/pc/faq.html https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/Policy/MAN_4301-03V2_20210419.pdf https://www.acquisition.gov/afars/chapter-3-gpc-electronic-systems

My thoughts and research------- I agree do not attempt a modification to the micro-purchase order. Otherwise consider - With regard to the Christian Doctrine remember it is a legal doctrine applied by courts. Now one might use it as an element to consider in solving a conflict prior to reaching the courts with such conflict but its reference to solving your matter escapes me to some extent unless you are saying you currently have a conflict at hand with regard to the micro-purchase. This said I did find reference to a Nash Cibinic article that discusses the potential of application of Christian to purchase card buying. I do not have access to Nash Cibinic but if you do go here it might help - MANDATORY CONTRACT CLAUSES: Can They Be Incorporated By Regulation? Nash & Cibinic Report February 2014 28 No. 2 Nash & Cibinic Rep. NL ¶ 10 My research also suggests that If you have no good cause for the termination (breach of some sort, quality that does not meet even the vendors agreement, etc.) then you would depend on reasonable notice to terminate. While it depends on what is reasonable notice is it would usually include it being in advance of the intended delivery of the services and acceptable to the circumstances. I would add that sometimes commercial entities have what I will call hidden terms and conditions that require you to dig deeper than just the "boilerplate agreement". For example the agreement might provide or otherwise references terms and conditions found elsewhere like on a website or the like. In a close read of the boilerplate make sure there is no such reference and then head down the track of reasonable based on the particular facts of the micro-purchase.