.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'sap'.
Found 7 results
-
All, When consulting FAR part 6, we find at 6.301 (b), "Each contract awarded without providing for full and open competition shall contain a reference to the specific authority under which it was so awarded. Contracting officers shall use the U.S. Code citation applicable to their agency. (See 6.302.)." We know that the authority for agencies outside of DOD, CG and NASA is located at 41 U.S.C. 3304. For example, FAR part 6.302-2 (unusual and compelling urgency) is cited as 41 U.S.C. 3304 (a) (2). My question concerns SAP. When using FAR part 13 procedures, at 13.106-1 (b) (1) (i) FAR states, "Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization)." This citation is for below SAT, once we reach 13.5 (above SAT), we are referred back to FAR part 6 for guidance. I have been looking through U.S.C. and cannot find authority for the text at 13.106-1 (b) (1) (i) added through the passing of FASA in 94. Question. Did FASA create a SS authority under SAT, that doesn't have to be referenced back to U.S.C. or am I just not finding it?
-
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 am being told that a PNM is required for all modifications. I thought PNMs were not required for FAR Part 13 mods under SAT. I would appreciate hearing other people's thoughts on the subject.
-
While conducting reviews of SAP purchases a colleague and I had an discussion about what is necessary to award at a fair and reasonable price, in a particular situation. While price reasonableness is always a function of all the facts in a given procurement, absent any clear evidence of collusion or improper business relationships. Would two quotes from authorized distributors be sufficient fair and reasonable pricing? Assume that the determination necessary to support a single source BN/OEM has been properly executed for a part/item. Award is made to low price quoter of the same part/item. Would quotes from two different authorized distributors for the same BN/OEM item be sufficient price analysis to meet the threshold of FAR 13.106-3(a)(1)?
-
I’m soliciting under FAR Part 13 for commercial services buy valued over $25,000 but under SAT. It is a sole source requirement (not Brand Name). Issue 1: Let's say I post the pre-solicitation notice to the GPE and wait for the required notice time to pass; do I then need to post a copy of the solicitation? Or does the pre-solicitation notice count as the solicitation in the case of sole source SAP requirements? After the pre-sol synopsis period has ended, can I negotiate directly with the intended awardee, or do I need to post the actual solicitation to the GPE as well? (Just to cover my bases, for this particular example, I do NOT wish to issue a combined synopsis/solicitation.) Issue 2: If both a pre-sol synopsis and a solicitation posting are required, can the timeframes for both the synopsis and RFQ posting be shortened? FAR 5.203 (a) says, “[…]The notice must be published at least 15 days before issuance of a solicitation, or a proposed contract action the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one source under the authority of 6.302, except that, for acquisitions of commercial items, the contracting officer may— (1) Establish a shorter period for issuance of the solicitation; or (2) Use the combined synopsis and solicitation procedure (see 12.603).” Am I correct that this paragraph allows for shortening the period a pre-sol synopsis for commercial items needs to be on the street?
-
Is a Determination and Findings (D&F) report required to exercise an option for a task order under a GSA IDIQ contract under the simplified acquisition threshold ($150,000)?
-
I have a question regarding FAR 13.106-2 that I cannot seem to solve on my own, so I hoped the smart folks on WIFCON could provide guidance. Many might consider this a rather basic question, but nonetheless, I have managed to overthink it. To provide some context for this question, let's assume we are discussing the purchase of commercial supplies below the SAT. The excerpt at FAR 13.106-2( (3) reads, "Formal evaluation plans and establishing a competitive range, conducting discussions, and scoring quotations or offers are not required." The excerpt at FAR 12.203 reads, "Contracting officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial items prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition." What is the proper method for conducting discussions when using Simplified Acquisition Procedures? Is FAR 13 indicating that discussions are simply not required, but if they are utilized, the KO must follow the procedures at FAR 15.306? In the event that the procedures at FAR 15.306 are not required, how are discussions performed when using SAP? I've discussed this with fellow coworkers, senior contracting personnel, and searched case law to find information that helps me to form a solid conclusion; however, I have not found anything that I find sufficient. As stated, this is likely way more simple than I have made it, but I am wrapped around the axle on this one.
