The FY2002 DOD Authorization Act (Public Law 107-107) includes a provision, Section 803, which requires that DOD contracting officers obtain competition before placing an order against a GSA schedule contract. They must notify "all" of the contractors on a GSA schedule and solicit "offers" from them before placing an order in excess of $100,000. (There is a waiver provision and an exception to the "all" requirement.) This means that DOD contracting officers may no longer use the streamlined GSA schedule ordering procedures in FAR 8.404 when placing orders in excess of $100,000.

At first glance, this is a striking requirement which seems likely to have a significant effect on the workload and operations of many DOD contracting offices. $100,000 seems to be a low threshold. I have discussed it with a couple of knowledgeable persons who think that the workload effect is potentially devastating. But the new law does not seem to be generating much reaction. I'm surprised. Is the lack of reaction because it's really no big deal, or is it because people haven't heard about the new law?

By C Mercy on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:42 pm:

I suggest its because people have not yet heard of it.

By bob antonio on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:50 pm:

Vern:

I don't think people have fully digested it yet. Perhaps the contracting world just expects something ugly every year in Title VIII of of the Defense Authorization Act.

I see nothing in 803 that is good. It combines unlike items, adds jargon, increases procedure, and adds nothing of value. A true piece of legislative garbage. Someone slapped that thing together during conference. The first ones to cry will be the regulators that try to patch that gobbler into existing regulation.

By anonymous8 on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:08 pm:

I asked because it seemed like a major deal to me; our office often does orders from GSA schedules and the impact would be to take away a lot of the reasons for using the schedules.

Someone pointed out that we need to see how this is implemented. The exception language seems to say that if you got three quotes, then you do not need to notify all contractors.

If we do need to notify all and consider all quotes, then the workload will be just unmanageable. I recently did a sources sought on CBD to see if i could get capability statements on a GSA schedule I have not used before. For a small purchase, received over 150 indications of interest.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:09 pm:

C Mercy:

If I remember rightly, you work in a government contracting office. If so, does your office rely much on GSA schedules, and if so, do you think the new law will have much impact on workload?

By Linda Koone on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:26 pm:

I'm sure everyone is waiting on the implementing guidance - DoD has 180 days to add this requirement to the DFARS. When the proposed rule hits the Federal Register, I'm sure there will be a few comments.

We're primarily in the business of purchasing supplies, not services, so I don't anticipate any impact here. But Bob's right. It is a dandy piece of legislation!

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:29 pm

Soliciting three quotes is fairly easy. I believe that it will be much more of a challenge to actually receive three quotes.

Eric

By bob antonio on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:42 pm:

Here is the work around for the MAS issue. It is in section part (b)(3).

"if notice is provided to as many contractors as practicable."

Practicable needs to be defined in the issued regulation so that the system is still workable. Once it is sent to all "practicable," then you may make a purchase if you receive 3 offers. If you do not get three offers, the determination in 4(b) can be filled with baloney to get it by any second-guesser.

As I mentioned, this adds procedure. The Councils just have to be careful in neutering it.

Feel free to see if I read this thing correctly.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 02:00 pm:

To all who have not yet seen it, the statute has three main requirements:

(1) "fair" notice of intent to make a purchase to "all" contractors offering such services" under a multiple award contract,

(2) "all" contractors that respond to the notice must be given a "fair" opportunity to submit an "offer" (not a quote), and

(3) "fair" consideration of each offer that is received.

It seems reasonable to interpret "fair" to refer to procedural fairness, such as reasonable time to respond to the notice and/or prepare an offer and description of the evaluation criteria. Procedural fairness might also extend to the handling of late offers and government-offeror communications after the receipt of offers. Keep in mind that the GAO may decide to impose its own interpretations of what is fair. (The rules about discussions in source selection were largely developed by the GAO in its protest decisions and then incorporated into the ASPR/DAR, FRP, and then FAR.)

Keep in mind that to policymakers and many contracting officers, procedural fairness almost always means procedural formality and complexity.
Also, while contractors cannot protest task order procedural execution under most task order contracts, the GAO will consider such protests against orders placed under GSA schedule contracts.

I don't envy the DAR Council.

By C Mercy on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 02:32 pm:

Vern
I do but not DOD. My interest is that when sludge like this is foisted on one element of the executive branch it does not take long to find its way to all. Notwithstanding when I think back to the DoD activities I have worked in I think the conclusions are inescapable....it will be unworkable or simply not complied with.

By Anonymous8 on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 03:14 pm:

I wonder if they have any idea of how many schedule holders are on some of these skeds. My computer memory can't hold all the attachments that will come through with quotes.

It may become more efficient to do Part 12 using Part 13 procedures.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 03:52 pm:

C Mercy:

I agree.

Bob:

The only practicable way that I can think of to provide "fair notice" to all of the contractors on a GSA schedule contract will be via FedBizOps or some mechanism supplied by GSA at GSA Advantage. But while that would solve the mechanical problem of having to notify "all" contractors, it might result in a flood of offers. The question is whether COs will be able to limit the number of contractors they notify in order to limit the number of offers that they will have to evaluate. I can't tell from the plain language of the statute (subsection (b)(3)) whether that would be an acceptable reason for limiting notification. In other words, does "as practicable" refer to the practicability of notifiying large numbers of contractors, or does it include the practicability of evaluating large numbers of offers?

Some other practical questions are:

(1) What information must be included in a "fair notice"?

(2) Will COs be able to make combined notices/solicitations, such as are permitted for certain purchases of commercial items? For example, will a CO be able to post a statement of work with a notice and ask for offers in response, or will they have to publish both a notice and a separate solicitation?

(3) Will the DAR Council establish a minimum amount of time that COs must give contractors to respond to a notice (perhaps with an urgency exception)?

(4) If COs elect to use nonprice evaluation factors, in addition to price, does "fairly considered" mean that COs will have to evaluate every offer against every evaluation factor, or will they be able to use a phased evaluation (downselect) so as to quickly narrow the field to the top two or three competitors? If so, what kinds of criteria will they be able to use in the initial round? If they make a downselect, must they consider price, or will they be allowed to eliminate some offerors on the basis of something like experience, without consideration of price?

By Smokey on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:21 pm:

As a previous DOD Contracting Officer, I really don't see much of an impact. At least in my experience, most commands have mulitple awarded ID/IQ efforts for common services. We were actually discouraged from using GSA schedules (very expensive!).

By bob antonio on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:24 pm:

Vern:

At times, there are opportunities to iron out legislative intent after law is made. It takes an experienced and humble regulator and a willing legislator. This can be initiated with a feeling-out process and the appropriate amount of deference by the regulator towards the legislator.

I think that is what is needed here.

By Anon2U on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 05:26 pm:

Dee Lee was at a recent NCMA meeting and discussed the 803 requirement. It was her belief that the DAR council would make it a FEDBIZOPPS posting requirement with it specified which GWAC, MAS, or GSA schedule would be used in awarding the order. She thought the 3 proposal rule as too unpredictable and cumbersome. And yes she said they were struggling with how to handle Schedule 70 and others with hundreds of possible vendors.

She also indicated that it would probably be made to apply to all agencies (via the FAR council I guess).

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 07:22 pm:

According to the Federal Procurement Data System, DOD reported 28,291 GSA schedule orders and order modifications in excess of $25,000 in FY2000, for a total of nearly $5.6 billion. The report does not say how many of these were in excess of $100,000, but the average dollar value of these GSA orders/mods was about $194,408. DOD reported an additional 76,291 GSA schedule orders worth $25,000 or less.

DOD reported 661 orders/mods in excess of $25,000 against "other Federal schedules" and 24,332 orders/mods in excess of $25,000 against other multiple award schedule contracts.

To give you an idea of workload impact, DOD reported 23,214 new definitive contracts in excess of $25,000 in FY2000 and 85,730 contract modifications in excess of $25,000. Thus, GSA orders/mods were more numerous than new contracts, but less numerous than contract modifications. Based on these data, the new law could affect workload significantly.

Since it appears that FedBizOps will be the vehicle for giving fair notice, the main problem will be how to efficiently evaluate large numbers of offers received in response to a notice. Simple evaluation processes will be essential to effective implementation.

By bob antonio on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 07:46 pm:

Vern:

I was just going to add something about that. Think of the contractors listed on the schedules, MACs, and GWACs. Regardless of any new chance of winning, they would be blitzed with thousands of "opportunities" and they will not have the time to deal with this new source of "leads." In the end, they will do just what they are doing now -- market themselves to organizations with whom they have success.

The councils should think this thing out from beginning to end and then have a talk with the appropriate individuals in Congress.

Any contractors out there want to see a new deluge of false hopes or do you want to market to real prospects?

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:47 pm:

Bob:

I agree.

Assuming that the vehicle for providing "fair notice" is FedBizOps, that site will be blitzed with a bunch of submissions related to orders against GSA FSS contracts. (I don't think that other task order contracts will create much of a problem in this regard.) It would be helpful if FedBizOps were redesigned to put the notices about GSA schedule orders in a special place in order to avoid cluttering an already busy site. Contractors will need to check that site regularly to spot new opportunities.

Contractors will have to discipline themselves to be discriminatory when it comes to deciding when to submit an offer and when to pass, because despite the requirement for "fair consideration" some agencies will have preselected and will be running sham competitions. Contractor self-promotion efforts ("marketing"), to the extent that they are effective, will exacerbate the problem of sham competitions.

I've had a couple of DOD people write to me to say that the new law will make the schedules less attractive. GSA may have to change its strategy of awarding a schedule contract to almost every company that wants one. I have received some intelligence to the effect one of the objectives of the law was to force GSA to make some changes. I don't know if that info is reliable or not.

By bob antonio on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 05:34 am:

Vern:

I was thinking about segregating the schedule notices from real opportunities too. At least that will set them aside. In the early 1990s, agency users disliked going to GSA because it was more of a contracting agency than a servicing agency. That feeling resulted in GWACS, MACs, etc. The GWACS and MACs now exist.

A Federal Acquisition Regulation proposal (it should be on the "news from last week" page) from last week sought comments on placing all MACS, GWACS, and schedules on the same internet page.

Once there, the GWACS will be a definite competitor with GSA. MACS may be a little more annoying to use. However, contracting organizations will have to weigh the various procedures in using all vehicles. Some vehicles are subject to protest, others are not; one GWAC ordering procedure may be simpler to use than another's; a GWAC may be easier to use than a MAC, etc. The procedure will play a significant factor in usage.

You can see where this is all going. As I approach the end of my federal career, I see opportunities to do different things in the real world. As long as bad ideas rule, there will be more and more of these opportunities. That is why we have so many bandits surrounding our fair town's beltway.

By Anonymous8 on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 06:43 am:

Other possibility for fair notice was mentioned at recent GSA expo. They are working to improve something called e-business (I think that's the name) which is a system where you would enter your RFQ.

Gist of what I got from briefing is that you select three contractors to have the RFQ "pushed" to (get an e-mail notifying them of RFQ and asking for quote). At the same time, the RFP would be posted on the GSA e-business site for those who chose to check and want to quote. Those contractors would would also see which three contractors were downselected for sending the RFP to.

Of course, we normally do not tell people which firms they are competing against...

By casia on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:11 am:

Clarification Please.

Linda Koone stated this wouldn't impact her office because they purchase primarily supplies, not services. Doesn't this apply to both supplies and services under GSA/FSS?

Yes, FedBizOps would be the vehicle to use, and yes, the additional workload would be horrific.
Need to get back to being "reasonable" instead of forcing "all" to be considered. Need to be cost effective and streamlined - not add burdensome costly processes of little or no value to the government and its taxpayers.

Also, if there is going to be "competition" among GSA/FSS contractors, do small, disadvantaged, woman-owned, hubzone etc get ANY advantage?

By Vern Edwards on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:12 am:

Anon8:

Good information. But your use of the terms RFQ and quote compel me to point out once again that the language in the statute says "offer" not quote. It's a technicality, I know (semantics and all that), and the DAR Council's implementation might ignore it, but I think that as contracting professionals we should maintain a heightened awareness of such technicalities. The difference between offers and quotes might be procedurally significant.

Bob:

The biggest potential problem with the application of Sec 803 to GSA schedule contracts is that agencies might be overwhelmed by large numbers of offers that must be "fairly considered." The effect of the law in this regard is likely to be more local than general. Some offices are more dependent on GSA schedules than others. People who work in offices that don't rely on the schedules are likely to think that the new law is no big deal. (Think about Smokey's comment yesterday.) But we know that in FY2000 somebody in DOD issued more than 104,000 orders against GSA schedules. More than 28,000 of them exceeded $25,000. It is possible that 10,000 of those (a pure guess on my part) exceeded $100,000. When you consider the likelihood that those orders were not evenly distributed thoughout DOD, you then realize that there could be a significant workload impact on some offices, while others barely notice. Moreover, the impact would be hardest on those offices in which the personnel aren't used to formally competitive award processes. To have to go from "reviewing" three catalogs or price lists, a la FAR 8.404(b)(2), to ensuring that a large number of competing offers are "fairly considered" in a potentially protest-rich environment may come as a paralyzing shock to some offices.

We have the law, so there's no sense in complaining about it anymore. What we need now are effective and efficient implementation procedures. I simply don't trust the DAR Council to come up with good implementation. The implementation of procurement legislation by the regulatory staffs has not been all that good. Think about how people in this forum have complained about how they implemented FASA and FARA. The DAR Council might do little more than simply restate or paraphrase the statute and leave it to buying offices to decide what to do. That's where this forum can be helpful. I hope that people will write in with ideas about how to implement the statute in streamlined ways that won't overwhelm the GSA-dependent offices.

By Linda Koone on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:43 am:

Casia:

The Title and paragraph (a) of Section 803 are as follows:

'SEC. 803. COMPETITION REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SERVICES PURSUANT TO MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.

(a) REGULATIONS REQUIRED- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall promulgate in the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation regulations requiring competition in the purchase of services by the Department of Defense pursuant to multiple award contracts.'

I believe that it relates only to the purchase of services, but I could be wrong.

By bob antonio on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:46 am:

Vern:

I agree with your analysis. Our friends at the DAR Council are aware of this forum, so if someone has something to say, it may help to say it.

I work with our legislative friends on a continuing basis and know that they will respond to helpful regulators who want to meet their needs. If the DAR Council has not contacted the writers of this section (and I feel confident that they have), they should. However, I think both Councils should be involved. Regulators, working with legislative representatives, can "perfect" legislation. The one thing no one wants to happen is a failure to communicate. We saw that earlier with the defense contract specialist qualifications.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:49 am:

Linda:

You're not wrong. The law expressly applies only to the purchase of services.

Vern

By Anonymous8 on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:12 pm:

Hi Vern,

GSA procedures ask us to send out RFQs. Does new law only apply where we send out RFPS related to GSA schedules?

Since I do not send out RFPS, then I need not worry? (Forwarded with an unprofessional chuckle)

By casia on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 02:11 pm:

It seems strange that this would apply to services and not supplies, or perhaps this is a precurser to competing GSA/FSS for supplies as well. (Not that I want the DAR council to take this up as a suggestion!)

Our sub-group purchases services under GSA contract. At last count, there were 280 contractors on the environmental schedule, over 700 firms on the MOBIS schedule, and well over 1,000 contractors on the IT schedules.

Does anyone know the volume of orders for services over $100K that are placed in a year?

By Vern Edwards on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:19 pm:

casia:

It's not really strange that the new law applies to services and not to supplies when you understand the fundamental difference between delivery order contracts (IDIQ contracts for supplies) and task order contracts (IDIQ contracts for services).

In a delivery order contract, the prices are for units of output, i.e., items of supply. But in a task order contract, the prices are usually for units of input, i.e., labor hours. (The exception to this is the so-called job order contract, in which prices are for units of work rather than labor hours.) If I'm buying supplies under a delivery order contract, I can determine price reasonableness by comparing contractors' item prices. But if I'm buying the performance of a task under a task order contract, I cannot determine price reasonableness by comparing hourly rates. That's because an hourly labor rate does not represent any specified level of labor productivity, and so I cannot be sure how many hours any particular contractor may need to complete the task. One contractor may have lower hourly rates than another, but needs so many more hours to complete the task that it is really the higher-priced contractor.

This difference between the output pricing of delivery order contracts and the input pricing of task order contracts is one of the reasons why critics of task order contracts want contracting officers to select contractors by obtaining and evaluating competing offers rather than just comparing the hourly rates in the contractors' price lists.

Does make sense to you?

By C Mercy on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:36 pm:

It does to me....and I would have no serious objection if the threshold were considerably higher. You do not get much for 100k these days .

By Eric Ottinger on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:36 pm:

Vern,

I don't disagree. However, I would note that the professional services contracts have been subject to some highly publicized IG and audit attention in which it has been determined that the incumbent almost always wins follow-on work.

I believe this is a more cogent reason for the emphasis on service contracts.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 07:04 pm:

Eric:

I think it's fair to say that the distinction between output and input pricing is one of the reasons why the IGs and the GAO have paid especially close attention to what has been going on under task order contracts, and why they don't like what they've seen.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 08:03 pm:

casia and Eric:

The following quote explains GAO's reasons for its concerns about DOD orders for services against GSA schedule contracts. The quote is from Contract Management: Not Following Procedures Undermines Best Pricing Under GSA's Schedule, Letter Report, 11/28/2000, GAO/GAO-01-125:

"Most DOD contracting officers included in our review did not follow GSA's established procedures intended to ensure fair and reasonable prices when using the Federal Supply Schedule. In fact, 17 of the 22 orders--valued at $60.5 million--were placed without seeking competitive quotes from multiple contractors. Instead, in placing the 17 orders, contracting officers often relied just on a comparison of labor rates of various contractors listed on the Federal Supply Schedule and generally ended up placing the orders with incumbent contractors. Relying on labor rates alone does not offer an agency a good basis for deciding which contractor is the most competitive since it does not reflect the full cost of the order or even critical aspects of the service being provided, such as the number of hours and mix of labor skill categories needed to complete the work."

By John Ford on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 09:06 pm:

Although the DAR Council has not published any proposed rules on this yet, one topic no one has addressed is the role of BPAs under GSA schedule contracts. Every GSA schedule contract with which I am familiar provides for agencies to enter into a BPA with the contractor. Any thoughts on how this particular nuance should be addressed?

By Vern Edwards on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 11:23 am:

The GSA's concept of the blanket purchase agreement (BPA) has always struck me as odd. If you look at GSA's guidance on its web page, it says, "Once a single BPA has been established task/delivery orders can be placed without further competition."

See: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/offerings_content.jsp?contentOID=116431&contentType=1004.

Even some DOD agencies disagree with that statement.

FAR Part 13 describes a BPA as a "charge account," i.e., a monthly billing agreeement. FAR 13.303-5(c) says, "The existence of a BPA does not justify purchasing from only one source or avoiding small business set-asides. The requirements of 13.003(b) and Subpart 19.5 also apply to each order." The FAR statement contradicts GSA's statement on its web page, yet GSA refers to FAR Part 13 in stating its justification of BPAs: "The use of Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) under the Federal Supply Schedules Program has been permitted for a long time. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.303-2(c)(3) states that 'BPAs may be established with Federal Supply Schedule contractors….'"

I guess GSA's concept of the BPA is based on the notion that its schedule contracts are awarded competitively and that no further competition is needed when placing an individual order, other than to compare the prices of schedule contractors. See FAR 8.404(a). Sec. 803 appears to override that policy with respect to DOD, because it requires that DOD contracting officers make "each individual purchase of services in excess of $100,000 that is made under a multiple award contract... on a competitive basis." The statute expressly includes GSA multiple award schedule contracts among "multiple award contracts."

Some DOD agencies require a price comparison among BPA holders before placing an order. See the Air Force policy dated 1 May 1998, as described in the attachment entitled, FSS/BPA Business Practice Guide. Also see the Navy's Blanket Purchase Agreement Best Practices. (You can access these from the GSA site mentioned above.) That practice might not satisfy Sec. 803's requirement for notice to "all" contractors and fair consideration for "each individual purchase." But agencies might be able to use that procedure pursuant to the exception Sec. 803's subsections (b)(3) and (4), depending on how the DAR Council interprets them.

It seems likely that DOD agencies which believe that the establishment of a BPA eliminates the need to compete individual orders against FSS contracts will have to change their practices. Sec. 803 says that "an individual purchase of services" (italics added) is made on a competitive basis only if "all" contractors get "fair notice" and if each offer received in response is "fairly considered."

The GSA FSS BPA program may be kaput. We'll have to see how the DAR Council implements Sec. 803.

By anonymous8 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 07:48 pm:

GSA provides further guidance in one of its manuals for schedule holders. It talks about BPAs with only one firm as well as the more traditional BPA with several firms, each competing on various task orders.

The GSA guidance notes that the single BPAs are only appropriate where the requirements can be well defined. They ask that you compete the requirement against several schedule holders and then issue the "single" BPA.

In practice, it is difficult to define the various tasks well enough.


Guidance from GSA, though, in my personal opinion, is often inordinately vague, in varying detail depending on where you look, or very precise but not helpful.

Issues we deal with are:

- There is no process for sole source buys when using the GSA schedules under Part 8.

- Apparently there is never a contract (with each contractor's prices AND applicable contract clauses) issued. We are told to go the FBO and see the RFP, as that is what is awarded. Go to FBO and you see that amendments are issued to these RFPS. Not easy to get a handle.

- There seem to be quite a few schedules for products that do not include warranty. I had to do one warranty with Part 6 J&A to get additional coverage on a product purchased through the schedules. (Yes, I know what any contracting person is thinking - should have gotten the warranty at the time of the buy).

By Anonymous8 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 07:52 pm:

One other thought regarding the GAOs comments on contracting officers not getting competition.

The GSA procedures did not specify that quotes were required for services - I researched because my tech guys said just look at lists and get me XXX. The procedures changed (or were actually publicized) a little before the time of the GAO report. (I have my files at work which would place the timing of the change more precisely.)

By casia on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 09:48 am:

Vern - thanks for the basis for distinction between buying GSA/FSS Supplies vs Services. It does make sense, but also makes me question the value of GSA/FSS for services since more detailed evaluation is required, and especially in light of Section 803.

By John Ford on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:23 pm:

Vern, interesting point about 803 overriding GSA guidance. That seems to be a sticky problem since the GSA guidance is issued pursuant to another statute unique to GSA. GSA's interpretation of that statue is entitled to deference by the courts. Nothing in 803 directs GSA to do anything. This obviously creates some interesting problems. Section 803 is not the only place this pops up. For example, by statute DoD is required to have its own regulations governing intellectual property. That is why you have different types of license rights in software for DoD and the civilian agencies. What software license rights is DoD to acquire when it uses the schedules to obtain non-commercial software? Not meaning to digress too far her, but just pointing out that there are other situations where DoD's use of GSA schedules gets rather complicated because of conflicting statutory requirements.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 03:31 pm:

John:

I agree that Sec. 803 doesn't require GSA to do anything. What it does is limits DOD's freedom to use procedures authorized by GSA. It requires DOD to do things that other agencies don't have to do when using GSA schedule contracts.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 04:12 pm:

I've hear numerous times that Federal Supply Schedules do not allow for sole source. Read FAR 8.404(b)(7) which clearly allows it when justified.

"(7) Documentation. Orders should be documented, at a minimum, by identifying the contractor the item was purchased from, the item purchased, and the amount paid. If an agency requirement in excess of the micro-purchase threshold is defined so as to require a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product peculiar to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company, the ordering office shall include an explanation in the file as to why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to satisfy the agency's needs."

By Anon2U on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:33 pm:

Thats brand name not sole source. You can get the same brand from several resellers on GSA Schedule. However, you can sole source if the requirement meets one of the standard FAR exceptions.

By John Ford on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:20 am:

Anon2u: What FAR requirements are you talking about? FAR 6.3 only applies to award of contracts.
What in the FAR says you cannot solicit a quote/offer from only one supplier of supplies? Hopefully, we are all aware of the special ordering procedures for services that require a SOW.

By Anonymous on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:18 pm:

Anon2u: My personal opinion is that FAR 8.404(b)(7) just hasn't been updated since FSS began offering services under schedules. If you don't like that as authority to sole source the order use FAR 16.505(b)(2), in that these are multiple award IDIQ contracts.