.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Architect-Engineer'.
Found 2 results
-
Is it permissible to award an 8(a) sole source single award AE IDIQ? FAR 36.101 appears to prevent such a contemplated award, as requirements exist within FAR Subpart 36.6 that may be challenging to meet under such an acquisition type. A Few Relevant References (Specific Areas of Interest Included as Blue Font): Subpart 36.1 - General 36.101 Applicability. (a) Construction and architect-engineer contracts are subject to the requirements in other parts of this regulation, which shall be followed when applicable. (b) When a requirement in this part is inconsistent with a requirement in another part of this regulation, this part 36 shall take precedence if the acquisition of construction or architect-engineer services is involved. 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts. 36.602-1 Selection criteria. (c) Hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts, the relative utility of alternative methods and feasible ways to prescribe the use of recovered materials and achieve waste reduction and energy-efficiency in facility design (see part 23). 36.602-3 Evaluation board functions. (c) Hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services. Your thoughts are most appreciated! -
Would love some input here from any knowledgeable folks about this. If an agency intends to issue a single solicitation for multiple A-E services IDIQ contracts, is that a "multiple award" as defined under FAR 16.505 and does the fair opportunity process apply at the task order level? FAR 16.5 exempts AE IDC's from the statutory multiple award preference, I get that. And the Brooks A-E Act as implemented by FAR 36.6 applies, i get that too. But by logic, if one solicitation results in multiple IDC's it seems that's a "multiple award" situation. And as for Fair Opportunity, I'd think the most appropriate COA would be to articulate in the synopsis how the agency will provide fair opportunity at the task order level by selecting the best A-E for each particulat task order SOW (using competency/qualifications criteria not price). In my experience this issue is consistently something that is discussed inconclusively, since, to me at least, the FAR is a bit convoluted on the topic. The DFARS used to have instruction under citation 216.505-70 (it was ¶(a)(4) I believe) that specificially exempted A-E contracts from fair opportunity under the IDIQ ordering process--however sometime in 2012 or 2013 that content was removed. The USACE's Architect-Engineering Contracting Guide (EP 715-1-7), which was updated in 2012 states at page 4-9 that the Contracting Officer must document the file as to why a particular contractor is selected. Although that's not policy that applies to any non-USACE contracting agencies, they are considered to be one of the premiere A-E contracting agencies across the federal Government. The EP also provides a standard synopsis template (appendix O) that states verbatim, "If multiple IDCs, state method to be used to allocate task orders among contracts when two or more IDCs contain the same or similar scopes of work such that a particular task order might be awarded under more than one IDC. See FAR 16.505 for guidance." Anyone have any experience with this issue?