Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GeoJeff

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,434 profile views
  1. I'm confused. I thought the NMR applied over $25K? 13 CFR 121.406(d) is clear, yet see FAR 19.102(f)(7) and 52.219-6(d). Is this yet another case of FAR not having "caught up" with an underlying regulation, as is the case with the limitations on subcontracting changes?
  2. Agreed, that is what the regulation says. My original question stems from CAFC's ruling in Digitalis, which seems to imply that if a prospective contractor misses the boat during the synopsis period, he is no longer an "actual or prospective bidder." This seems contrary to the plain language at 5.207( c )(16). Perhaps there is a different answer when using SAP? What about a synopsis that says: "Other prospective contractors may submit a capabilities statement by the closing date of this announcement. All submissions will be evaluated for the sole purpose of determining whether compe
  3. OK, assume we're using SAP and soliciting a single source. I shall amend my hypothetical synopsis to the following: "(Agency X) intends to solicit a quotation on a single source basis IAW FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i) from (company Y) for (product/service Z.) Company Y is the only source reasonably available to fulfill this requirement under the circumstances because (reasons). IAW FAR 5.207(16)(i), all responsible sources may submit a quotation which shall be considered by (Agency X). The request for quotation will be available on or after 01 May 2016." You post that synopsis on 15 Apri
  4. Yup, that's what it says; the plain language is plain. And if you're using 6.302-1, 5.207( c )(16)(ii) requires a statement "...all responsible sources may submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation which shall be considered by the agency." Regardless, for the purposes of framing this question, I think the question regarding timelines and appropriate action is largely the same. Assume the synopsis is posted 4/15/16, and says: "Agency X intends to (negotiate on a sole source basis with/award a noncompetitive contract to) in accordance with FAR (whichever applies) compan
  5. Agreed, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the instant discussion. 5.102(a)(1) says in relevant part: "Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the contracting officer must make available through the GPE solicitations synopsized through the GPE...", which would apply equally to a noncompetitive 13.106-1, $26K action and a sole-source 6.302-1, $26M action. I agree with Don that the plain language is, well, quite plain...however Digitalis calls into question what the purpose of posting a noncompetitive/sole source solicitation would be.
  6. Don, I knew you'd say that. Have you read Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. v US, CAFC 2011-5079, 01/04/2012? In Digitalis, CAFC wrote: Say you have a rock-solid noncompetitive justification. You post a notice of intent for a reasonable period of time and there is a deadline for other potential sources to submit capabilities statements, and nobody does. You prepare the solicitation without competitive evaluation criteria, email a copy to the intended awardee, and post a copy to FBO because of what FAR 5.102(a) says. An hour before the quotation submission deadline, you rece
  7. Apologies for resurrecting an old topic, but I have a specific situation related to this that has me thinking in circles. I can't formulate a logical response to a client about an intended acquisition strategy, though admittedly not everything we do is logical. My agency has a multiple-award GSA BPA with three resellers of Hewlett-Packard (HP) LAN switches and related equipment. This was awarded competitively. The three vendors are given fair opportunity to compete for individual calls. We now have a need to purchase a moderate quantity of part number J9150A, which is (for the purpose of
  8. In March 2015, DoD requested to open a FAR Case to remove the FAR Matrix. I know this having seen an email from GSA directed to CAAC members requesting feedback. DoD wrote (I added bold for emphasis): We recommend removing the FAR clause matrix for the following reasons: 1. The matrix was a paper-based solution which cannot provide sufficient information regarding required clause usage. In order to include the correct provisions and clauses in a contract it is necessary to employ a contract writing system based on the use of clause logic, with appropriate input from the contracting offic
  9. This discussion reminds me of two related annoyances. First: In commercial item acquisition, the SAM requirement is at 52.212-1(k) and 52.212-4(t). In noncommercial item acquisition, the SAM requirement is at 52.204-7 and 52.204-13. The FAR matrix lists both 52.204-7 and 52.204-13 as "A," for "required when applicable," in "CI" "Commercial items" acquisitions. Why? Second: 52.232-40 is required in all solicitations and contracts, including all commercial item acquisitions; see 12.301(d)(5). The clause date is December 2013. Why is this not simply included in 52.212-5, dated December 2014
  10. I've had Don as a CO. I pick Vern. It gets discouraging having your contract files physically thrown down the hallway. On the other hand, it was entertaining to get Don to sign a BCM that included a footnote reading (my original post was edited) something negative about Don. Hope all is well in your world, Don.
  11. metteec, You wrote: "Further, it also makes sense to wait until after completion of negotiations before submitting a sole source notice in FBO." FAR 5.207( c )(16) requires you to insert a statement in your FBO notice allowing responsible alternate sources to submit something "which shall be considered by the agency." How would you comply with that requirement ("...shall be considered...") if you've already completed negotiations with someone else? Note: Edited to fix the "c" in parens.
  12. Don, perhaps you can include a section on how to interpret semicolons in your proposed reference guide???
  13. Precisely. If the contractor's proposal said "we assume you mean X, so we propose to do..." and the government really meant Y, the contract should not have been awarded without resolving that issue in the first place.
  14. No, not useful. The problem is that too many people in this field don't read, and when they do, they don't understand. Giving them something else to read ain't gonna help.
  15. 52.212-4(t) doesn't explicitly require SAM registration prior to award. In noncommercial acquisition, 52.204-7 requires SAM registration prior to award and 52.204-13 requires maintenance of the SAM registration throughout the contract until final payment. In commercial acquisition, it's 52.212-1(k) and 52.212-4(t).
  • Create New...