REA'n Maker

You're being disingenuous. Nothing is immortal, so you are certainly correct in the most pedantic way possible, however I'm fairly certain that no one took that statement to mean that any regulation enacted today will still be around when the sun goes supernova. According to you my professors at the GWU Graduate School of Business were also obviously stupid, because the tendency of regulations to persist once enacted was an axiom throughout the entire Business and Government Relations curriculum.

Regulations are enacted through FAR clauses, so I'd say it's 100% related to contracting. The SNAFU regarding the COVID clause is a perfect example.

Yeah; good luck with that. I basically had to assume the role of TET lead because the entire technical team was an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent bunch of stewed cabbages. My justification was that it was Part 16 therefore the technical team were 'advisors'. I found out after award that the DHS PIL was holding meetings with the TET on an active competitive procurement without my knowledge. The protest decision is due in 2 weeks. For those of you in DoD, on the civilian side the program technical/engineering expertise is atrocious. I have Theatre majors acting as CORs on billion-dollar A-E contracts and no one bats an eye.

Selecting "at least 3 8(a) A-E firms to discuss and base its selection of the highly qualified firms" sounds exactly like Part 36.6 to me. Where does "sole source" come into it? Isn't a J&A required somewhere in there? (If your argument turns on the vagaries of the 8(a) program, that is a rabbit hole I shall not follow you down. 8(a) awards are administration of a socio-economic program, not "acquisition". I'm focused on the sole-source/36.6 aspect and will gladly defer to your 8(a) expertise). The FAR states that "Agencies shall evaluate each potential contractor..." using specific selection criteria detailed under 36.602-1, that "[t]o be considered for architect-engineer contracts, a firm must file with the appropriate office or board the Standard Form 330" (36.603), and that agencies shall conduct the A-E tech eval using specific people (36.602-2) following specific procedures (36.602-3). Also note that per 36.602-4, the CO is not the source selection authority and that all 3 ranked-order firms are considered "selected" in the SSA decision. Saying the CO can restrict the pool of qualified vendors based on [insert unknown criteria here] does not make sense in this scenario. I'm speaking from experience. Our program attorney was of the (wrong...) opinion that Subpart 36.6 prohibits sole source, so rather than fight that battle we followed Brooks Act procedures using qualification criteria that were previously used to justify the sole source strategy. The process led to the same result - solicitation of a non-competitive price proposal, C or P Data cert, negotiations, F&R cost determination, and award to the single most qualified firm. Why is it worth so much time and effort to force-feed any procurement into the sole-source lane when you can achieve the same result using Brooks Act procedures?

Interesting thought exercise. As long as those terms are unambiguous there seems to be nothing that says you can't. I would be more concerned about obtaining the necessary HCA-level pre-approvals for a PoP longer than 5 years (if it's base + 4).

Maybe they just like saying "cyber". It's not as much fun to say as "Francisco", but it's close. 😐

I was saying both business processes lead to the same result, never suggested sole-source wasn't allowable (I asked "why do it" if it's not necessary), and deliberately didn't cite regulations and statutes because that wasn't my point. I'm also not following the "regulatory bureaucracy I am creating" comment - there's no bureaucracy created by following 36.6 without exception. If your point is regarding the SBA aspect, that's a wash either way, correct? It would be cleaner if we were not involving SBA, but that's the same for everything else in Federal contracting so why should this be any different...?

Yet another reason to just follow 36.6. Put out your public notice regarding submission of SF-330's restricted to 8(a), evaluate them, rank them, negotiate price with the top ranked guy, and award. The first 3 steps are essentially what you should do (informally) to properly support a sole-source J&A anyway. Both processes lead to the same result, but only one constitutes competitive procedures. Neither procurement involves competitive pricing, so C or P data requirements are a wash. Sole-source Bad; Competition Good!

Subpart 36.6 leads you to negotiating price with the (sole) source deemed most qualified, same as the sole-source/JEFO process*. Why waste time and effort on the competition exemption process? (*assuming we're talking about 6.302-1 as the justification)

Would you say it's appropriate for the government to engage with the new contractor during the limbo between award and PoP start date? Or is the presumption that the vendor do all the planning and preparation and hope for the best? Every transition I've been involved with requires government involvement and approval. Can the new awardee engage with the existing vendor when planning their seamless continuity of services? Seems kind of pointless otherwise. 99% of government contracts are not awarded early and yet all the stuff you mention happens anyway. i.e., "early award" is clearly not required for proper transition planning. Where is the data that suggests otherwise? Conjecture or not, contractors taking any action related to a contract with no coverage is a risk. And when they file their claim the Government will be on record as tacitly encouraging them to incur those costs. Is it reasonable to assume all these actions can be accomplished at no cost? [* The rationale I've seen so far reads like a "parade of horribles"]

Yes, but what on that list is in the Government's best interest? "Beating PALT" is administrivia, "closing the protest window earlier" doesn't make a protest less likely to occur (and there is pretty much 0% chance a protest would be resolved by the start of the PoP anyway), "Enabling current TO to utilize any remaining funds on the current contract and minimize doing a De-Ob" has nothing to do with an early award, and "providing the contractor more time to plan" is pure conjecture and begs the question of unauthorized pre-contract costs. So, my question still stands. For the record, my point was more existential in nature, as in "every CO should ask themselves this question as Step 1".

There are many, many reasons that an experienced professional could imagine where it might not make sense to have a space of time before date of award and the start of the performance period.

This scenario would also be somewhat applicable to an option exercise ("is there such a thing as exercising an option too early?"). What if your awardee ends up on the SAM/PPIRS naughty list between award and start of the PoP? What if their SAM registration expires before the start of the PoP? The FAR requires a CO to check SAM for exclusions immediately before award (I was dinged in an audit for checking SAM the morning of the award, which occurred later that afternoon.) The obvious intent is to make sure you're not awarding to an ineligible vendor. "They were fine when I checked them 2 months ago" won't fly. What is the upside of awarding early? Of all the posts on this topic I have yet to see anyone justify why it's in the best interest of the Government to award months before the start of the PoP (e.g., for supplies, supply chain lead-time might be a justification).

The requirement for the CO to accurately assign NAICS codes isn't just limited to OASIS (FAR 19.102(b)(2)(i)). How that could apply to anything other than a task order/call is a mystery, but this is SBA we're talking about.

PII is not an administrative issue and likely would involve multiple, high-level agency reviews and approvals. That's a heckuva' last-minute add.