Don Mansfield

FYI, APA does not apply to the FAR System. The relevant statute is 41 USC 1707.

Are you asking if it's professional in theory or in practice?

I don't think that contracting officers are required to do anything differently post-RFO when it comes to competitive negotiations. The minimum information that they must communicate hasn't changed.

What's the difference between discussions as used in the current FAR and competitive negotiations as used in the RFO?

Yes, but the contracting officer can only verify how the offeror represented itself. The CO has no authority to determine whether the representation is true. Again, if they have reason to doubt the representation, they can protest to the SBA.

I'm seeking answers to the following questions-- What can contracting officers do post-RFO that they were prohibited from doing pre-RFO? What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO? What are contracting officers required to do post-RFO that they were not required to do pre-RFO? What are contracting officers prohibited from doing post-RFO that they were permitted to do pre-RFO? I'm looking for noteworthy changes. If you can't think of responses for all four, that's fine. I'll take whatever answers you have. Please no AI-generated answers.

There is no requirement for the contracting officer to "verify" a small business representation. If the CO has reason to doubt the representation, they can protest to the SBA.

I don't know if what @formerfed described includes permitting all responsible sources to compete--that's why I said it may not meet the definition.

Ok, so you're saying you don't need "full and open competition" to get a good deal. I agree. I also think what you described is a competitive procedure, even though it may not meet the definition of "full and open competition."

How is that not competition?

Yes. You made this argument convincingly in the past by comparing the size of the workload for each to the size of the workforce for each. There are too many 1102s doing purchasing agent work.

Carl, I posed that question to @Joe Bernier

Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?

Given SAP allows any combination of procedures from 13, 14, 15, 35, and 36, wouldn't that include Brooks Act procedures?

Should eliminate the dollar limitation on SAP?

Because the dollar limitations come from Congress and are implemented by the FAR Council. If the dollar limitations went away, it's possible agencies would still impose use of standard procedures but that would be at their discretion.

Let me rephrase that-- Should Congress and/or the FAR Council mandate standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit agencies to decide which procedures to use within the guidelines of FAR part 13 (for any dollar value)?

I'm not sure exactly which statutes you are referring to, but any existing statute that does not apply when using SAP would remain inapplicable. That would include CICA and any statute that specifically applies to FAR part 15 source selection.

I interpret this as a risk that the Government would generally pay more. Why do you think this would necessarily be the case?

Disregard the RFO. Assume the current FAR permitted use of FAR part 13 without a dollar limitation.

Keep in mind FAR part 13 permits use of any appropriate combination of the procedures in parts 13, 14, 15, 35, or 36.

What would be an example of there being a problem with the authority to use SAP for something exceeding the existing dollar limitations?

Not referring to the RFO. Assume there would be no dollar limitation for using SAP--commercial or not.

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

@cdhames Have you read RFO 12.102(b)?