ricroy

Reference FAR 19.102(b). The NAICS should be selected based upon the one which best describes the principal purpose of the supply or service being acquired. The selection is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, but see also FAR 19.103 which addresses appeals to the NAICS code selection. It is the discretion of the contracting officer to change the NAICS if there is a determination that the initial selection does not best represent the principal purpose of the NAICS initially selected. As a side note, there is a common misconception that an offeror must include the NAICS for an offer in their SAM registration, but this is not true. It is conceivable that the interested party is asking the question due to a lack of understanding, but it is also possible they may also not qualify as a small business in the selected NAICS and hope to have it changed to a different NAICS under which they would be considered small.

I think that the Board of Contract Appeals was wrong. Seems to me that this was treated after award as a labor hour contract as described in 16.601 and 16.602. The question of whether this was appropriate in a Part 12 acquisition which defined the lines as FFP and did not include a D&F per 12.207(b)(1) is a different one.

"Legal Contract Cancellation" is not new to FPDS as a reason for modification. It has been a part of the FPDS Data Dictionary for quite awhile.

15.303(a) states, "The contracting officer is designated as the source selection authority, unless the agency head appoints another individual for a particular acquisition or group of acquisitions." An individual is defined as a "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family." So as currently described in the FAR, an SSA is a human. Perhaps the new and improved FAR 2.0 will redefine "Contracting Officer" or "individual" as other than human. -- The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 defines an inherently Governmental Function as "a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees," (emphasis mine) so this is based upon statute rather than any policy or regulation. I also do not think that computer software could yet be considered a "Federal Government employee." -- The question of whether or not all award decisions are currently made by humans is unimportant as the law requires humans to perform this work.

Yes, an SSA has to be human. The duties and responsibilities of an SSA as described in 15.303(b) are inherently Governmental per 17.503(c)(12).

The rule of two is not statutory. However, Kingdomware was decided based upon the fact that VA is subject to the rule of two for SDVOSB set asides. Not simple stuff. And a revision of the FAR, if done well will not happen easily.

Was the "business proposal" you refer to performed as part of the work under the contract which is being terminated? If so, you most likely should be compensated. The Government does have the right to "terminate for convenience", but this is most typically done along with a settlement of costs for work performed prior to the termination. Have you submitted a final invoice for the work performed under the contract prior to the termination? If not, that might be a good place to start.

Have you considered this: https://www.gsa.gov/buy-through-us/purchasing-programs/multiple-award-schedule/help-with-mas-contracts-to-sell-to-government/scls-wage-determinations-applicable-to-mas-contracts

To support Vern's perspective that the estimated/anticipated value should guide and support the acceptable use of SAP in the OP's scenario. FAR 1.108(c) - Dollar thresholds. Unless otherwise specified, a specific dollar threshold for the purpose of applicability is the final anticipated dollar value of the action, including the dollar value of all options. If the action establishes a maximum quantity of supplies or services to be acquired or establishes a ceiling price or establishes the final price to be based on future events, the final anticipated dollar value must be the highest final priced alternative to the Government, including the dollar value of all options. (emphasis mine)

Interesting timing of the above reference to Oct. 1, 2025. Just yesterday via a Technical Amendment the can was kicked down the road to Oct. 1, 2028 "to provide additional time to implement the policy addressing the assignment of North American Industry Classification System codes to orders placed under multiple-award contracts, as covered by changes made by FAR Case 2014-002, Set-Asides Under Multiple-Award Contracts, 85 FR 11746."

I believe you can submit corrections via this online form: https://www.acquisition.gov/contact-us Wondering if anyone has had success with this, or will be submitting FAR 1.602-3(d) and 13.305-1 errors?

I don't think that an evaluator acting in good faith should look at a Termination for Convenience on a vendor's record and conclude that the vendor did anything inappropriate.

I looked in the Acquision.gov archives at an earlier version of the FAR. At that time, 13.105 stated: (a) The contracting officer must comply with the public display and synopsis requirements of 5.101 and 5.203 unless— ... (ii) The GPE is used at or below the simplified acquisition threshold for providing widespread public notice of acquisition opportunities and offerors are provided a means of responding to the solicitation electronically This language is quite similar to that currently found in 5.202(a)(13) and my interpretation is that the FAR Council contemplated that as long as the solicitation is posted on GPE and responses can be made electronically synopsis is not required. I'm of the opinion that email is an electronic means of responding. It seems to me that over time the original intent has been lost and people are wasting a lot of time (15 day posting period) on what is intended to be a simplified process. As I am also interested in what is actually happening in the field, I've posted a Poll on the topic and hope people will respond.

Intrigued by the current discussion in the "For Beginners Only" forum, FAR 5.201(a) Requirement to Synopsize and SAP I'd be interested to know what people are actually doing in their day-to-day work.

FAR Case 2016-002 / FAC 2022-06 shows an effective date of May 26, 2022. There are two clauses which indicate a May update. There are: 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. As of May 31, neither of these clauses are updated in Acquistion.gov? Am I missing something, or is someone asleep at the wheel with the long holiday weekend?