Former Fed

@Don Mansfield So if we only get one proposal? Good question.

@Don Mansfield I believe 16.500(d) covers that: the statuary multiple award preference does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for A/E services using this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with subpart 36.6. I'm okay with the using Brooks Act procedures for awarding task orders under a MA contract. However, what we have done in the past is award several single award IDIQ contracts (following the Brooks Act for award) for A/E services. Then award task orders under the single award contracts. Also, multiple attorneys have signed off on the award of single award A/E contracts over the years. The latest attorney that wrote this decision is now saying that we CANNOT award single award IDIQ contracts for A/E and must award multiple award contracts, totally ignoring 16.500(d) and quoting RFO part 36.202(b)(2) and (3) in her decision.

Sorry @FormerFed, didn't know it was already taken. Tried to change but it doesn't give me the option.

C Culham I totally agree. And you are correct, there was no case law presented that supported their decision.

It's not FEMA. In the FEMA case, it sounds like they issued multiple award contracts then didn't use the Brooks Act to compete the task orders. Our agency has established that under multiple award A/E contracts that the Brooks Act must be used. But as I said above FAR 16.500(d) states that the statuary multiple award preference does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for A/E services using this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with subpart 36.6. That is where I have a problem: It states that the MA preference does not apply for A/E. Also, the attorney who delivered the opinion is not a procurement attorney and didn't even weigh in on 16.500.

Although my agency has awarded single award A/E contracts for years, someone in charge a few years ago decided that they didn't want us to use single awards (with no basis other than an opinion). One of the reason we chose not to award multiple award A/E contracts is because we are required to use the Brooks Act procedures for each task order, prolonging the process. An attorney wrote a decision that stated the agency has to award multiple contracts for A/E reasoning that RFO 36.102 requires COs to award A/E in accordance with part 36, RFO part 36.202(b)(2) and (3) require agencies to identify at least 3 firms for discussion. So their argument is you cannot do that at the task order level with single awards. My argument is FAR 16.500(d) states that the statuary multiple award preference does not apply to architect-engineer contracts subject to the procedures in subpart 36.6. However, agencies are not precluded from making multiple awards for A/E services using this subpart, provided the selection of contractors and placement of orders are consistent with subpart 36.6. To me the paragraph above is says it all but now because of one person's ego, the whole agency has to suffer. I would appreciate other's opinions (especially Vern and Joel).