When to use a Contract Vehicle for a BPA Call?

[cdhames]

I've long been somewhat confused on when to issue an actual contract vehicle against a BPA call, but the subjects come up recently in my office so I thought i would finally ask.  When do you issue a contract vehicle (SF 1155 or 1449) against a BPA call?  Our latest guidance is that it's required for any calls above the MPT.  I can't find any references that supports this or invalidates it, but i know that it doesn't make sense.  If the Government Purchase Card (GPC) is the preferred method of purchase for under the MPT; and a CO must issue an 1155 for any BPA call above the MPT, then of what value is there in establishing a decentralized "charge account"?  Apologize if i sound like a noob, I'm not really, but it's long been a gap in my understanding.  Thanks.  

[C Culham]

52 minutes ago, cdhames said:

When do you issue a contract vehicle (SF 1155 or 1449) against a BPA call? 

When the BPA says so.

56 minutes ago, cdhames said:

If the Government Purchase Card (GPC) is the preferred method of purchase for under the MPT; and a CO must issue an 1155 for any BPA call above the MPT, then of what value is there in establishing a decentralized "charge account"? 

You need to ask whomever issued the guidance.   Pursuant to FAR 13.301(c) the GPC could be used but providing the authority to do so begins with delegation of authority a Certification of Appointment of a Contracting Officer.  All in all a read of FAR subpart 13.2, FAR 13.301 and FAR subpart 1.603 should hopefully help in your understanding.

 

[cdhames]

Appreciate your response.  Also appreciate you referring me back to my guidance issuer.  I get that's generally the authoritative response when someone asks a question and says we "were told" to do it this way (so just do it, don't post on a forum right?).  I should add I'm not trying to rock a boat here.  I'd like to just formulate an intelligent response to that guidance issuer.  By the way I did ask that guidance issuer before i posted here, and was referred to the DAFI 64-117.    

here's where I'm at:  

13.303-5 (b) Individual purchases shall not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. 

32.1108 issues further guidance for Payment by Governmentwide commercial purchase card, but seems only to apply to written contracts (i.e., 32.1108(b)(1)Written contracts to be paid by purchase card should include the clause at 52.232-36, Payment by Third Party).  

Clause 52.232.36 seems to be irrelevant since we're discussing a decentralized BPA i.e., charge account for items under the SAT.  (unless of course we're issuing a contract vehicle --which is why I'm here --I'm looking for that guidance that says i have to).

Since this is Air Force, DAFI 64-117 (Government Purchase Card Program) is applicable, but there is only 1 reference to "BPA" in the entire 96 page document.  Thus:  11.1.2. CH Training Requirements for Above MPT up to SAT Purchases on Pre-Priced Contracts. CHs shall be appointed as a “Contract Ordering Official” in PIEE/JAM to be authorized to spend up to the SAT. (T-0) This requires CHs, who are not Contracting Officers, to take CON 237 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures, prior to receiving authorization to spend up to the SAT on pre-priced BPAs and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts.

So where i'm at currently:  Authorized callers can make calls up to the SAT (13.303-5(b)); as long as they're properly trained and appointed as a "Contract Ordering Official" (DAFI 64-117 para 11.1.2.).  

Im unable to locate any guidance that states I have to issue a contract vehicle for BPA calls over the MPT.  So..  I can do the research, I'd just like someone to point me in the right direction.  

[Don Mansfield]

18 hours ago, cdhames said:

I've long been somewhat confused on when to issue an actual contract vehicle against a BPA call, but the subjects come up recently in my office so I thought i would finally ask.  When do you issue a contract vehicle (SF 1155 or 1449) against a BPA call?  Our latest guidance is that it's required for any calls above the MPT.  I can't find any references that supports this or invalidates it, but i know that it doesn't make sense.  If the Government Purchase Card (GPC) is the preferred method of purchase for under the MPT; and a CO must issue an 1155 for any BPA call above the MPT, then of what value is there in establishing a decentralized "charge account"?  Apologize if i sound like a noob, I'm not really, but it's long been a gap in my understanding.  Thanks.  

I'm confused by some of the wording in your question. I think you are asking at what dollar value a BPA call needs to be issued on a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449, instead of using the GCPC to make a purchase. I also assume that you are referring to a FAR part 13 BPA.

DFARS 213.270 generally requires the use of the GCPC for purchases at or below the MPT. FAR 13.301(b) states that: "Agency procedures should not limit the use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card to micro-purchases." DoD allows the use of the GCPC to make purchases above the MPT as described in DFARS 213.301. There may be other circumstances in which the Air Force permits the use of the GCPC above the MPT.

Above those thresholds, I think you would have to make the purchase using a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449. 

[cdhames]

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

I'm confused by some of the wording in your question. I think you are asking at what dollar value a BPA call needs to be issued on a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449, instead of using the GCPC to make a purchase. I also assume that you are referring to a FAR part 13 BPA.

DFARS 213.270 generally requires the use of the GCPC for purchases at or below the MPT. FAR 13.301(b) states that: "Agency procedures should not limit the use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card to micro-purchases." DoD allows the use of the GCPC to make purchases above the MPT as described in DFARS 213.301. There may be other circumstances in which the Air Force permits the use of the GCPC above the MPT.

Above those thresholds, I think you would have to make the purchase using a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449. 

That's what I'm asking.  I've been unable to find a threshold that says specifically that a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449 needs to be issued when placing BPA calls above the MPT.  And it seems like that would invalidate the value of awarding a BPA for purchases above the MPT (FAR 13.303-5 (b) Individual purchases shall not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold).  Much of the value of a FAR 13 decentralized BPA is the flexibility of the authorized caller to place calls without the involvement of a CO.  Having to execute a 1155 for a call above the MPT seems to defeat the purpose of the decentralized BPA.  

I would add, you don't need a BPA to make a GCPC purchase below the MPT.  What is the point of the BPA?

[Don Mansfield]

Imagine the time before the GCPC or the concept of micro-purchases. BPAs were an effective way to accomplish small-dollar purchases without burdening the contracting office. Typically, a contracting office would set up a BPA for an organization that did some buying, but not a lot. They would authorize certain individuals to make "calls" (actual phone calls) to vendors against a charge account. The authorized callers would keep a call log (actual paper log) that the contracting office would periodically inspect. I'm sure some of the folks on Wifcon have had experience in this type of environment.

The advent of the GCPC changed things. There probably aren't that many organizations that need BPAs to make small-dollar purchases anymore. BPAs are used more as IDIQs for SAP these days (from my observations). I know of agencies that have competed multiple-award BPAs and subsequently limited competition for calls to the awardees. This technique has withstood protest at the GAO. Some of these BPAs may permit the placement of orders using the GCPC in amounts greater than the MPT.

59 minutes ago, cdhames said:

I've been unable to find a threshold that says specifically that a DD Form 1155 or SF 1449 needs to be issued when placing BPA calls above the MPT.

Ok, but there are thresholds that limit the use of the GCPC. So, you have to use a different method to place the call above those thresholds. What else would you use? For purchases above the SAT, see FAR 12.204 and DFARS PGI 213.307.

[C Culham]

23 hours ago, cdhames said:

I get that's generally the authoritative response when someone asks a question and says we "were told" to do it this way (so just do it, don't post on a forum right?).

It's the fact of life, not authoritative a simply fact!   I have provided a view of what may be going on.   As I stated in my initial post the requirement of what to use to make a call is stated in the BPA.  The crafter of a BPA (and any policy that so guides it) then dictates what that will be.   Don has provided some history on how procurements at or below the simplified acquistion threshold have evolved to help.  So in the end the FAR, agency policy regarding BPA's and the systems that are employeed to create fiscal and acquisition responsibility (control and reporting especially) are what plays into what constitutes a "call" under a BPA.   In my stubby pencil days way back we would create anything we wanted that would constitute a "call".   And I am serious, home baked forms, a log, etc.   The aforementioned reasons have now changed that on the premise of needing controls and I am going to bet that the reasoning for a 1155 or 1449 has to do more with systems and accountability.  By example you have plowed the FAR and its tenicles (the DAFI is one in my view) to find your magic answer but have you plowed fiscal policy and what it demands?

 

21 hours ago, cdhames said:

What is the point of the BPA?

To set up a charge account as you have noted.   Heck the FAR even says so.   But in the world of "innovative" CO's who are looking at ways to control competition, make life easier for all, avoid having to obligate minimums on IDIQ's (because their use and control was not understood has reached a lower standard), and in truth just do not "get it".   So now you have folks wanting to set up BPA's for all kinds of stuff and lots of them that deal with procurements way above the SAT (as you have noted).   If you  have a BPA that does not have specific and established pricing for a specific service or product do your really want any Tom, Dick or Harry making calls against a it with little or no oversight and established controls to appropriately capture the calls in reports and insure they are appropriatly using  the BPA?    Think about it!   That doen't even with a GPC pursuant to the very reference you have provided - the 96 pages of the DAFI.

 

 

[Don Mansfield]

7 minutes ago, C Culham said:

So now you have folks wanting to set up BPA's for all kinds of stuff and lots of them that deal with procurements way above the SAT (as you have noted).

I know of one agency that is using a FAR part 13 BPA for a major system acquisition. They have special emergency procurement authority, so they can make individual purchases up to $15 million (no, they are not breaking down requirements to stay under $15 million).

[C Culham]

38 minutes ago, Don Mansfield said:

I know of one agency that is using a FAR part 13 BPA for a major system acquisition. They have special emergency procurement authority, so they can make individual purchases up to $15 million (no, they are not breaking down requirements to stay under $15 million).

A simple search of SAM.gov just now on "BPA"  "Active" and "Inactive" yielded 27,010 hits!

[Don Mansfield]

I wonder how many are FAR part 13 BPAs.

[C Culham]

Many it appeared.

[cdhames]

21 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

I wonder how many are FAR part 13 BPAs.

I think you'd be surprised.  In my experience most, (if not all?) base level contracting units (CONS in AF) still utilize FAR 13 BPAs.  MPT and GCPC guidance has changed dramatically over the last 15 years but I don't believe the FAR 13 BPA guidance has changed much at all.  

[cdhames]

 

On 2/6/2024 at 4:05 PM, C Culham said:

When the BPA says so.

On 2/8/2024 at 8:42 AM, C Culham said:

To set up a charge account as you have noted.   Heck the FAR even says so.   But in the world of "innovative" CO's who are looking at ways to control competition, make life easier for all, avoid having to obligate minimums on IDIQ's (because their use and control was not understood has reached a lower standard), and in truth just do not "get it".   So now you have folks wanting to set up BPA's for all kinds of stuff and lots of them that deal with procurements way above the SAT (as you have noted).   If you  have a BPA that does not have specific and established pricing for a specific service or product do your really want any Tom, Dick or Harry making calls against a it with little or no oversight and established controls to appropriately capture the calls in reports and insure they are appropriatly using  the BPA?    Think about it!   That doen't even with a GPC pursuant to the very reference you have provided - the 96 pages of the DAFI.

 

Just to revisit your point, "when the BPA says so".  There isn't a clause that I'm aware of that mandates a single call Purchase Limit on a FAR 13 BPA; as I've seen it done, it's normally prescribed in descriptive text as an "add-in". The Air Force has moved to a contract writing system that considers this now, so you're able to set a purchase constraint on a FAR 13 BPA and it will essentially print out on the 1155 something like this, "Allowed Per Order, Maximum:  xx,000.00 Dollars".  The only FAR or official AF guidance that i can find is the FAR 13.303-5 (b) reference stating that BPAs shall not exceed the SAT.  Any discussion of establishing a "charge account" in official guidance is either no longer apparent, or vacated.  My question is, is it your view that whatever purchase constraint the CO chooses to set the purchase limit at (within the prescribed FAR guidance), is that the limit that the a call can be placed at, without executing a Standard Form 1155 or 1449?  Or am I interpreting your comment wrong?

[C Culham]

2 hours ago, cdhames said:

My question is, is it your view that whatever purchase constraint the CO chooses to set the purchase limit at (within the prescribed FAR guidance), is that the limit that the a call can be placed at, without executing a Standard Form 1155 or 1449?  Or am I interpreting your comment wrong?

Your interpretation is off a bit.   The form for the order will be dictated by other policy or regulation that might include that from a "system"  and/or fiscal side.   So something might be dictated such as a 1155, 1449 or something else.  Example go here, look at the 101 references to "order" and see how orders are placed for an Incident Blanket Purchase Agreement.   https://sam.gov/opp/c1c21f2570164d07a745a8be01b8173a/view 

 

Posed another way is it not just like any other procurement where you,  as a CO, can not use any form you want to accomplish a procurement/payment you must use something that is prescribed or implemented by a "system" by your agency or department?