KeithB18

We are all probably going to need some more information to help you out. The first place to start would be with the BPA itself. Read it, find out how many awardees there are. Find out what the call order procedures are. Are you sure the services are non-severable? Also, review FAR 13.303 and/or 8.405-3. Both sections cover BPAs. We'll help you here, but you'll have to do some research on your own.

It sounds like the right thing to do here is compete the requirement. You know of a second vendor so it isn't sole source. Too often contracting officers are afraid to compete things because competing is "hard." I'm not trying to be glib, but if you read the FAR, follow it closely and document the rationale for your decision, you can get this thing competed. I'd also recommend reviewing FAR 12.603 "Streamlined Solicitation for Commercial Items." It may or may not work for your situation, but it is worth considering.

Looks like I found my answer: 45 USC 823 paragraph (k) makes me believe these funds are "continuing appropriations." Thanks again to WIFCON.

wvanpup & Mr. Edwards: The funds are not gifts, but the following passage in International Line Builders decision may help shed some light on the situation: "We find no merit in Bonneville's argument that it is not using appropriated funds to finance its construction program. While Bonneville's funds appear to be generated by rate-payers rather than the result of an annual appropriation by Congress, we do not consider them to be nonappropriated. Where Congress has authorized the collection or receipt of certain funds by an agency and has specified or limited the purposes of those funds, the authorization is a "continuing appropriation" regardless of the fund's private origin. Monarch Water Systems, Inc., 64 Comp.Gen. 756 (1985), 85-2 CPD Par. 146" We collect funds from vendors in order to determine their credit worthiness for loans. My suspicion (I have further research to do) is that Congress requires us to collect these funds. I do know that someone, somewhere has set limits on how much we can collect. That could make them "continuing appropriations" rather than NAF. Looks like I need to find out the basis for the program. Thanks for the clarifications.

Hello all: I've got a NAF procedures question. Situation: My small, civilian agency has some circumstances where we receive non-appropriated funding from private sources for narrowly defined projects. The money is wired in from the vendor, and in the past, we've used the FAR to award contracts using the NAF money. This money is in no way appropriated by Congress. At points in the past, we've had multiple award IDIQs set up but they have since lapsed. In the interim, we've used GSA schedules to purchase the services we require. They are commercial financial services. Argument: I argue that since the money in not appropriated by Congress, the FAR does not apply and we should be free to design our own award procedures. Research: FAR 1.104 "Applicability" states, “The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in Part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded.” Acquisition is defined in FAR 2.101: "'Acquisition' means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies and services by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease…” Flipping over to FAR 2.101, "Contract’ means a mutual binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services (including construction) and the buyer to pay for them. It includes all types of commitments that obligate the Government to an expenditure of appropriated funds and that, except as otherwise authorized, are in writing…” Additionally, the Foreward of the FAR states, "The FAR is the primary regulation for use by all Federal Executive agencies in their acquisition of supplies and services with appropriated funds." Just to make it clear, my argument is that since we are using non-appropriated funding, the FAR does not apply. I have been able to find some DOD procedures for using NAF, particularly for MWR and commisary operations. The Army regulation I found was essentially a watered down FAR. I'm not sure that would make a great model for what we are trying to accomplish. Unsurprisingly, I'm getting pushback from the lawyers, the policy department and my boss, but they cannot tell me why they don't agree. (It just "seems" wrong, in other words) Before I push them too hard, I wanted to see if anyone here has experience or can point out where I've gone wrong. What I'd like to do is put in place a short local policy that governs the process for award NAF contracts. I think it makes sense to compete these projects to ensure that everyone is getting a fair deal, but I do not think it makes sense to utilize part 5 if we don't have to. I envision something like 8.404©(2); a streamlined approach to competing the requirement among as many vendors as our market research suggests is practicable.

I was AD Air Force for several years but now I work for a civilian agency. I asked the instructor some questions as to where the course content is coming from, especially considering the instructor himself has said on multiple occassions that "This probably isn't relevant anymore," and he told me that the topics covered are mandated by DAU. I am in no position to ascertain the veracity of that statement.

I'm taking CON217 through a contractor this week, even though I took a similar course several years ago. (Somehow I did not receive a Level II certificate, so my agency has decided that I have to start over) The instructor has spend the vast majority of the time pointing out the specific locations in the book where the final test questions are. The course title is cost analysis, but it wasn't until day 3 that we encountered actual cost elements. There are some math and statistics involved, but the contractor has provided spreadsheets that calculate the numbers automatically, thus students don't have to know exactly what the numbers are telling them. The whole course is useless--I'm not confident that students who haven't encountered cost analysis would have much of an idea what it is. There's no discussion of the FAR at all...no Part 15, and certainly no discussion of 15.404©. What a failure. It's depressing.

Hello, I'm a relatively new supervisory (GS-14) contracting officer (since March 2013) responsible for a team of three GS-13 contract specialists. I'm interested in hearing about ways other, more experienced supervisors have developed to evaluate their specialists performance. We have access to the typical data: Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT), actions completed, and dollars obligated. All of those statistics are flawed in that they don't necessariliy tell the full story--PALT can be skewed by a bad project team; actions completed doesn't take into account complexity, and dollars obligated is a poor stand in for complexity.* How does one quanitfy things like poor document quality and iterative revisions because changes are not being captured? On the other hand, how does one quanitfy a star specialist who leans forward on projects, communicates effectively with the project team, and finishes complex procurements ahead of schedule? It is rating time at my small, civilian agency so any advice is greatly appreciated. *Particularly at my agency where we have several routine but high dollar actions that we always assign to a jr. specialist.

This may or may not be germane to the discussion, but my job satisfaction is orders of magnitude higher since I left the DoD for a civilian agency. The DoD was everything that has been mentioned--bureaucratic, rigid, afraid of 80% decisions, and filled with administrivia. My civilian agency (I can't speak for all of them) is light years behind the DoD in terms of policy, procedure, bureaucracy, etc. For me, that's a good thing, because I have input on how all that stuff develops. I fight against unnecessary bureaucratization every day--sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. I have been able to provide input on hiring, which has allowed me to bring in people that I feel comfortable empowering as COs--I can trust them to make sound business decisions. The bureaucracy is much, much smaller. The HCA is right down the hall, and makes himself available regularly. There aren't layers and layers of bureaucrats reviewing my contract files. That's a long way of saying something you probably all already know--some offices are better than others. My office isn't perfect, far from it, but I honestly feel like I get a say and that I can make things happen. So maybe look around a little. Find a smaller office in a quiet civilian agency and see if that is a better fit.

I think this is well said. For a variety of reasons, options sometimes get exercised late. The fix for that is not to try to unwind 100+ task orders, it is to, in the future, make sure the option paperwork gets done on time. I think this is a situation where contracting professionals should use a little business judgement...