Don Mansfield

That would depend on what the contract says, right?

22 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

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.

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions. The word "discussions" has been dropped.

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

43 minutes ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

Don, if the BPA is an "Agreement" and each Order is a Contract, that is set-aside for Small under a NAICS code, shouldn't the Contracting Officer Verify at each "Award" that the Company is registered in SAM etc. since it is a new contract each time? Isn't that part of award criteria?

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--

1. What can contracting officers do post-RFO that they were prohibited from doing pre-RFO?

2. What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO?

3. What are contracting officers required to do post-RFO that they were not required to do pre-RFO?

4. 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.

4 hours ago, InquisitiveSDVOSBer said:

But nothing I can find says that a Contracting Officer "must" verify a small is still small every time an award is made under a BPA, prior to awarding - is that written anywhere?

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.

7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@Don Mansfield

From FAR Part 2: "Full and open competition, when used with respect to a contract action, means that all responsible sources are permitted to compete."

What part of that definition does what formerfed described fail to meet?

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.

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

It doesn’t have to formal competition as in FAR 15. It can involve identifying potential sources, requesting information, and asking questions to arrive at a pool of a few or perhaps one source. Personal knowledge or prior experience can lead to a similar conclusion. Or it may consists of industry submission of information similar to A/E contracting.

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."

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

The well suited and informed buyer (contracting officer assisted by technical expertise, if needed) can reach a solid deal without competition. By first evaluating and selecting potential sources on technical merit and then negotiating price with the most favorable, an optimal choice is made. I’m thinking along the lines of the A/E contract process but perhaps not as formal.

How is that not competition?

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Should the government return to making a distinction between GS-1102 contracting officers and GS-1105 purchasing agents?

Purchasing agents would handle small-dollar transactional buys𑁋such as purchases of simple product buyes, simple services, and small-scale construction

Contracting officers would handle large-dollar long-term relational buys𑁋such as product and software development and production and other complex services, and large-scale construction.

Wouldn't that simplify and reduce the costs of training and make purchasing agent jobs open to those without 4-year college degrees?

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.

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

For example take this most recent question posed - "Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?" With regard to what is my question now? Are we talking the SAT and is so the FAR or the RFO as I believe the response is different if the FAR or if the RFO.

Carl,

I posed that question to @Joe Bernier

3 hours ago, Joe Bernier said:

SAP requires price to be evaluated, but it doesn't necessarily require price competition, so I don't think this would prevent a QBS like process from being used. The competition requirement could be met by evaluating technical quotes (qualifications) of multiple vendors and then evaluating price for only the highest rated.

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

On 2/20/2026 at 10:13 AM, C Culham said:

I have also weighed Don's question against allowing Brooks Act like processes for all procurements. I struggle to decide what might be of most benefit.

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

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

So yes I think Congress and the FAR Council should.

Should eliminate the dollar limitation on SAP?

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@Don Mansfield Why did you leave out "Congress and/or agency policy makers" and substituter "the FAR Council"?

For instance, the FAR Council did not issue the DOD source selection procedures, which are dumb. DOD policy makers did.

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)?

2 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Beyond that, do we assume the associated statutes are rescinded in this hypothetical? If not, I think very little changes in practice, since much of part 15 is based on statute.

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.

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

It would be great simplicity for the clueless who just want an award with the least effort. As for the taxpayers, whose interests may concern how much stuff will cost, will their best interests be served?

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

53 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Hasn't this been the question raised ever since FAR Part 12 came into being as related to the legal effect of a quotation. Does not the commercial sector operate of sorts in the world of what the Federal government calls simplified procedures for all kinds of things, or stated another way not as formal as prescribed for Federal acquisitions? Conclusion SAP is formal term for how to play the game within Federal acquisition.

Yes but is it still SAP when combined? FAR 12.201-2 suggests to me that such a "combination" acquisition becomes other than one completed via SAP.

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.

50 minutes ago, uva383 said:

I think the “what could the problem be” will be dependent upon what we are buying.

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?