Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'far 13'.
Based on the FAR alone, is there a requirement to post the documentation/justification of the decision to award to an "single source" for an emergency (unusual and compelling urgency) under the SAT using the authority of FAR 13.106-1(b)? Here's what I've found/reasoned out with colleagues so far: FAR Part 6 does not apply (FAR 6.001(a)), therefore the posting guidance of FAR 6.305 also does not directly apply FAR Subpart 13.5 also does not apply if the requirement is under the SAT (FAR 13.500(a)) FAR 5.202(a)(2) absolves us of the requirement to post prior to award because of the "unusual and compelling urgency" FAR Subpart 5.3 would also seem to indicate that no positing of the documentation/justification is required after award if under the SAT All this information leads me to the conclusion that the answer to my original question above is "NO", but it feels like I might be missing something. Thoughts?
I'm curious to know whether anyone has successfully done, or knows of anyone who has successfully done, a comparative evaluation pursuant to 13.106-2(b)(3). Specifically, I'm curious about the following: What did/would this look like in practice? For instance, beyond the evaluation factors themselves, would I need to specify the types of information that would lead to a superior proposal? Are there real efficiencies to be gained by using this method? In your opinion, if there are efficiencies, are they significant enough to be worth the risk of using a non-traditional evaluation method (particularly if the value exceeds the SAT)? I've searched message boards, GAO opinions, and reference books, and talked to colleagues, supervisors, and legal counsel for any precedent on this, but have come up empty. Thanks for your time.
My agency has determined that it's necessary to synopsize and compete BPAs established under FAR Part 13. Nowhere in FAR 13.303-2 does it state that you're required to synopsize, and--even though FAR 13.303-3 allows for the establishment of one BPA--FAR 13.303-5© states that the existence of a single BPA does not justify purchasing from one source (and where only one BPA exists, you must seek competition outside of the BPAs or establish new BPAs). I was brought up in contracting with the understanding that BPAs are just that--agreements. They are not contracts, and they are not binding. The way I understood BPAs under FAR 13 is that you can award them, non-competitively, to any contractor. The purpose it to set up "charge accounts," which include agency-specific clauses, invoice instructions, etc., but the competition is to be done at the order level. If you have a sufficient number of BPAs, you can compete among them. If you do not, you can solicit from the BPA holders as well as additional open market sources. So, my question is this: If an agency synopsizes for the establishment of a multiple award BPA, do I have to synopsize orders that exceed $25k? Does the fact that the requirement was synopsized at the BPA level negate the need for synopsis at the order level? ...and where did the idea of "rotating" sources come from??? My agency also states that there's no need for competition among BPA holders; instead, they contend that only rotating sources is necessary, and they are not limiting the rotation to orders under the micro purchase threshold.