Looking at FAR 5.301, a synopsis is required for award actions over $25,000 subject to the TAA or that are likely to result in subcontracts. Such synopses are not required if the contract action is for an amount not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.

So my question is, when would you be required to synopsize an action between $25,000 and $100,000?

By Newtothis on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 10:31 am:

Anon: This is an excellent question. It was my understaning that awards were reported to allow subcontractors to notify the awardee and possiblily obtain work. For those that reply to this would you please offer your interpretation of FAR Clause 5.301(b)(7)(iii). Does this mean allow the response via fax?

By CMERCY on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 10:42 am:

If the action were covered by the TAA or subcontracting possibilities existed you would synopsize the action (25k-100k). Its easier to synopsize every action than try to come up with a KO determination that no sub possibilities exist.

By Dave Barnett on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 10:47 am:

But rather than specify $25,000 in para. (a), why not just state "actions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold"?

By CMERCY on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 12:17 pm:

Because the action had to be synopsized at the 25k level as an intended procurement in the first place.

By Newtothis on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 12:33 pm:

If the acquisition is applicable to the TAA ($177,000 for supplies or services and $6,806,000 for construction)wouldn't it automatically exceed the $25,000 and have to be synopsized?

By Newtothis on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 12:56 pm:

OOPS I meant to say exceed the $100,000 and have to be synopsized.

By Anonymous on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 01:11 pm:

What is TAA?

By CMERCY on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 02:35 pm:

TAA=Trade Agreement Act. The term TAA is more of an umbrella term ....eg NAFTA comes under part of the TAA,especially those parts that treat some items as domestic. Since NAFTA starts at 25k it is synopsized at that level because it is TAA covered,

By Dave Barnett on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 01:26 pm:

Cmercy, good point. But I still have a question, under the old FAR, NAFTA fell under the subpart addressing trade agreements. With the new FAR 2001 subpart 25.403 addresses the TAA, subpart 25.405 addresses NAFTA. So Anon's question about consistency still seems extant...did Part 5 of the FAR not stay consistent with the rewrite of FAR Part 25? This is interesting...

By CMERCY on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 01:53 pm:

I THINK 25.408 is about as clear as it gets....both TAA and NAFTA are addressed and they are treated equally in part 5.......could you restate the question? If you still have one?

By Dave Barnett on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 02:01 pm:

Then why does FAR 25.408 state TAA or NAFTA while Part 5 states only TAA, and not TAA or NAFTA?

By cmercy on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 02:42 pm:

CHECK 5.203 (H)

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 02:52 pm:

It looks like no one is going to answer Anon's question of 11/9 at 9:14. He/she asked, "[W]hen would you be required to synopsize an action between $25,000 and $100,000?"

The answer -- based on FAR 5.301(a) and (b) -- is that you have to synopsize an award exceeding $25,000 but not exceeding $100,000 when all of the following conditions are met:

(1) the action is subject to the Trade Agreements Act, and

(2) the action likely to result in the award of any subcontracts, and

(3) access to the original synopsis was not available through FedBizOps ("the GPE" or Governmentwide point of entry -- see FAR 2.101), and

(4) offerors could not submit an offer ("respond to the solicitation") electronically,

unless one of the other seven exceptions [(b)(1) through (6) and (8)] apply.

If the action is (a) in excess of $25,000 but less than $100,000, and (b) was synopsized at FedBizOps or you could get to the synopsis through FedBizOps, and (c) offerors could submit offers electronically (which includes fax), then no synopsis of the award is required.

You have to read the FAR very carefully. It does not contradict itself in this case.

By CMERCY on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 03:40 pm:

Sorry,wrong answer. What I* meant to say was that the publication of the AWARD is governed by the terms of the TAA; similar language does not exist in NAFTA, Pre award they are treated the same because there is language in both Acts that state similiar pre-award requirements and timeframe. The post award requirements are different in each ACT .In this case it is not the FAR that is inconsistent but rather the individual acts themselves.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 - 05:34 pm:

Anon:

You do have to read FAR carefully; so do I. A correction to my answer:

If the action is subject to the Trade Agreements Act OR the action is likely to result in the award of any subcontract and access to the original synopsis was not available through FedBizOps ("the GPE" or Governmentwide point of entry -- see FAR 2.101) and offerors could not submit an offer ("respond to the solicitation") electronically, THEN you have to publish a synopsis of the award unless one of the other exceptions applies.

By ZELDA ANON on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 08:27 am:

So in answer to the original question "When would you synopsize a contract award between $25,001 and $100,000?" - The answer- Rarely. A award in this dollar range would not be subject to the TAA, as the threshold is $177,000 or more. (The TAA is not NAFTA, the Caribbean Basin Trade Initiative, or the Israeli Trade Act.) And it unlikely that the award would have sub-contracting opportunites. After all, awards up to $100,000 are supposed to be set-aside for small businesses anyway and more than likely wouldn't have the sub-contracting requirements. Even awards to large businesses don't require a sub-contracting plan unless the award is expected to exceed $500,000. So basically, you are not going to have to synopsize a contract award between $25,001 and $100,000 unless it is likely to result in the award of any subcontracts. Unless of course, as stated in FAR 5.301(2), you think publicizing the award would be advantageous to the industry or Government.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 09:35 am:

Anon Zelda:

I'm not sure that I agree with your broad conclusion that a CO would "rarely" have to publish a synopsis of award between $25,001 and $100,000. FAR 5.301(a)(2) says that you have to publish a synopsis if the procurement is likely to result in the award of "any subcontracts." Looking at the definition of subcontract in FAR 44.101, I do not think that you can validly say that an award of $100,000 or less is unlikely to result in the award of any subcontracts. A purchase order for materials or parts is a subcontract.

The extent and nature of subcontracting varies by industry and from company to company. Subcontracting under a contract of $100,000 or less may be rare in some industries or companies, but quite common in others.

By CMERCY on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 11:39 am:

Mr Edwards is correct. In my organization if the action before award required synopsis then the award also is synopsized.First reason,KOs have more to do then ruminate as to wether sub opportunities may or may not be available,\.second as a courtesy to other offerors as to whom the award was made and thirdly to advise other parties so as to interest them in future actions. Its a win-win method and only takes a few keystrokes.

By Dave Barnett on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 01:00 pm:

Let me get this straight, under FAR 5.301(a), we are instructed to:

a) Except for contract actions described in paragraph (b) of this section and as provided in 5.003, contracting officers must synopsize through the GPE awards exceeding $25,000 that are--

(1) Subject to the Trade Agreements Act (see Subpart 25.4), or

(2) Likely to result in the award of any subcontracts. However, the dollar threshold is not a prohibition against publicizing an award of a smaller amount when publicizing would be advantageous to industry or to the Government.

Note that "except for actions described in (b)", now in (b) one of the exceptions is:

(b) A notice is not required under paragraph (a) of this section if --

(7) The contract action--

(i) Is for an amount not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold;

Now if the SAT is $100,000, then (b)(7) is an exception to the requirements of para. (a) so para. (a) becomes inoperative if (b)
(7)(i) applies, Anon's question still remains, when would you synopsize an action between $25,000 and $100,000?

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 02:07 pm:

Dave:

You are misreading FAR 5.301.

Subparagraph 5.301(b)(7) contains three clauses -- (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii) and (b)(7)(iii) -- which are members of a series. You must read (b)(7)(i), (ii) and (iii) together. Subparagraph (b)(7)is to be understood as follows: A synopsis is not required if the contract action meets all of the conditions described (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii) and (b)(7)(iii).

Thus: a notice is not required if and only if:

(1) the contract action does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, (2) access to the original synopsis was available through FedBizOps and (3) offerors could respond electronically, or one of the other exceptions in paragraph (b) applies.

If any of the three conditions is absent, then a notice is required, unless one of the other exceptions [(b)(1) through (6) or (8)] applies.

If (b)(7)(i) had been followed by the word or, then your reading of it would be correct.

A close reading of FAR 5.301 will reveal (despite the FAR Council's goofy use of capitalization and punctuation) that paragraph 5.301(b) is actually a single complex sentence in which each of the numbered subparagraphs, (1) through (8), is a subordinate adverb clause modifying the phrase is required.

By Newtothis on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 05:11 pm:

I awarded a Construction Contract in the amount of $95,000. The Government estimate was $101,000. The following pertained to the solicitation:
1. It was synopsized in Fedbizops.
2. Fax bids were not authorized.
I want to know if I have to synopsize the Award. I go to paragraph 5.301(a) and it says except for contract actions described in paragraph (b) of this section and as provided in 5.003 contracting officers must synopsize through the GPE awards exceeding $25,000 that are-
Well the first thing I do is go to 5.003 and read that effective October 1, 2001, the contracting officer must transmit all notices to the GPE. My award exceed $25,000 and it is past October 1 so I think I must synopsize. Then I read (a)(1) Subject to the trade agreement act (see Subpart 25.4) I go to 25.4 and read 25.403(b) Thresholds and see that the threshold that applies for construction under the trade agreements act is $6,806,000 or more. Well my contract aint nowhere that so I figure I don't have to synopsize. Then I read (a)(2) and learn if subcontracting possibilites exist I synopsize. So now I think I must synopsize since this job could be subcontracted out. Then I read (b) and learn that a notice is not required under (a) if any of 1 through 8 are applicable. I read 1-6 and none of those are applicable so I feel I must synopsize. Then I read (7)(i)and(ii) and feel I don't have to synopsize because the award is less than the SAT and the notice of proposed contract action was through the GPE. I proceed to (7)(iii) now I feel I must synopsize because the bidders could not respond electronically. Then I read (8) and it is not applicable. Well I made the decision to synopsize for two reasons: (1) Sub-contracting possibilites exist and (2) the public was not permitted to respond electronically. Did I make the right decision?

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 - 06:51 pm:

Newtothis:

Yes.

By Dave Barnett on Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 07:09 am:

Mea culpa, Vern, I missed the "or".

By ZELDA ANON on Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 07:34 am:

Welcome to the world of "Simplified Acquisitions", LOL!

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 08:51 am:

Dave:

Well, it's not much of a culpa. It's easy to miss things in FAR. That subordinate adverb clause that I mentioned modifies the phrase "is not required."

Sigh.