Perhaps that's authorization by implication. The rule clarifies that agencies must use the 8(a) sole source justification specified in FAR 6.303-2 when it is applicable — they may not substitute another justification for other than full and open competition set forth at FAR 6.302, such as unusual and compelling urgency. But if you worked in my office you would not call it a JOFOC or cite 6.302-1, because if I let you do that it would show that neither one of us knows what we're doing. Either way, sorry for that. That's the correct answer to GOVCO's question number 3. I also understand Part 6 doesn't apply to Part 13; even though there are numerous things I must do that reference areas of Part 6. If under the SAT you simply need to "document" and from this read of the FAR you can call that document what you want - ref: FAR 8.405-6(f). I have to disagree with Carl's answer for number 3, based on FAR 8.405-6 (g)(2)(i). Same scenario above, what do I cite as the authority? Regarding your response to my second question, I have only seen in my office justifications called "JOFOCs" that cite as the authority 6.302-1. Title the word processing document as a Sole Source Justification for the specific purchase order number, if applicable, and list any institutional policy numbers on why a sole source is required for this requisition. Why would you want to call it a JOFOC or think it would make sense to call it that? See FAR 6.001(a). An appropriate title would be helpful but not required. Yes use the FAR 13.5 approach for the citation. Suppose that is another reason why I didn't specify dollar amount. 428a)?" You cannot use FAR 13.106-1((1) as authority, because that authorizes sole source for acquisitions "not exceeding" the SAT. FAR 13.501 requires that you follow the "format" in 6.303-2, which does not prescribe a title for the document. State specifically what the … "Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a ?Limited Source Justification.?" Nope still a justification and approval. Suggest you can call it what you want but you might want to consult your agency supplements to the FAR to see if they have provided a term of art for you. ... except for FAR 6.302-7, the justification for other than full and open. See FAR 6.303-2(a)(4), which says authority for other than full and open competition, which is not applicable under 13.5. And, our office primarily does commercial item acquisitions. Thank you. ", 1. I don't think FASA authorizes sole source, but maybe I missed it. 2. Don't call it "Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition," because the requirement for full and open competition does not apply to acquisitions under Subpart 13.5. Describe the particular uses of the item. Do I write something similar to "this acquisition is under the authority of the test program as outlined in FAR Subpart 13.5," then include whether it is "section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996" or the "authority of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (41 U.S.C. 428a). 1. Copyright @ 2020 Wifcon.com LLC 3. 3 you did not specify if the if the need was under the micropurchase threshold and under the SAT, or over the SAT. Emphasis added. 2. January 21, 2011 in Contract Award Process. Carl - I did not specify simply because I took it to be implied that the scenario had to at least be over the MPT, as I would not have used Part 8.4 procedures had it been under. Would the justification then be called a Limited Source Justification? P.S. Is calling it a JOFOC and citing 6.302-1 necessarily wrong? The requirement to cite authority is one of those things placed in the FAR that has not been thought through by the authors of the regulation. There really is no specific and express authority for sole source acquisitions under 13.5. The test program does not raise the SAT to $6.5 million ($12 million); it authorizes the use of SAP in acquisitions of commercial items in amounts greater than the SAT up to $6.5 million ($12 million). I think the best practical solution is to cite 13.501, but to recognize that while it acknowledges the reality of sole source, it does not expressly authorize it. Vern - Regarding your response to my first question, if I am to follow the "format" in 6.303-2 as I understand it, then how do you explain 6.303-2(a)(1), which says "Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a ?Justification for other than full and open competition.? ...and that is all I needed to know. The title of the memo will not affect its legal sufficiency. I understand FAR Subpart 13.501(a)(1)(ii) tells me to modify my justification "to reflect an acquisition under the authority of the test program for commercial items ...." However, what is the actual authority I cite? when there is only one responsible source and no other supplies or services satisfy requirements usually defined in the "Justification and Approval" is inadequate. Reference Item #4. Not Sole Source Justification right.... (See FAR Subpart 6.303-2(a)(1)). 10 USC 2304 and is implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 (as supplemented by DoD, Air Force, and Air Force Materiel Command). GOVCO, I mean, call it what you want. If the acquisition is under FAR Subpart 8.4, the proper title for the justification would be "Limited Sources Justification," because that how it is referred to in 8.405-6. "Sole Source Justification" or "Sole Source Justification and Approval" is proper, because that is what it is if you are soliciting and negotiating with only once source and that is how such acquisitions are referred to in FAR 13.106-1(. When contracts will be awarded under 15 USC 637 (FAR 19.8), sole source awards under the 8(a) Program. Yes, calling it a JOFOC is wrong, because you don't have to justify other than full and open competition under the test program, for reasons I have explained. In reading Subpart 13.501(a)(1), I understand, to a point, (ii) Prepare sole source (including brand name) justifications using the format at 6.303-2, modified to reflect an acquisition under the authority of the test program for commercial items (section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996) or the authority of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (41 U.S.C. [Not using the scenario above] What if I procured a brand name supply item under FAR Subpart 8.405-6. GOVCO - I agree I misstated the answer to number 3 but I believe further comments you have received while in part are correct and not. Sorry if anyone works here. I much rather do something right, or fix something that I have done wrong, as early on in my career as possible, then continue down a path of, "well, that's how we have always done it. Thanks Vern! See 13.500(a). I have always titled the document as an LSJ whether above the SAT, or between the MPT and the SAT. You really have a Justification and Approval (FAR 13.501(2)). I have only seen, and also prepared these justifications over the SAT, and when limiting the competition to a single source. I don't know about Clinger-Cohen. Thanks for confirming my thoughts on question 3. 3. Why would you cite 6.302-1 when you don't need that authority? I have only seen, and also prepared these justifications over the SAT, and when limiting the competition to a single source. The sole source justification and related material must be available to the public under FAR 6.305. By I have an aquisition to procure a particular commercial item supply or service. Most states require a written justification to support the request for sole source procurement. If over the SAT then use the term as noted by the V's as it is required. While it will not be helpful to your specific questions it is noted that FAR 13.5 spins off of FAR 13.106-1( wherein if you are not doing a commercial item procurement you would not need to follow nor cite FAR Part 6 specifically but your determination for a single source procurement uses similar conclusions as if you were doing the procurement under the authorities of FAR Part 6. FAR 13.501 requires that you follow the "format" in 6.303-2, which does not prescribe a title for the document. Through market research, I determine that the supply or service is only available from one source at a estimated cost of approximately $5 million. Is calling it a JOFOC and citing 6.302-1 necessarily wrong? ", "(i) Conduct sole source acquisitions, as defined in 2.101, (including brand name) under this subpart only if the need to do so is justified in writing and approved at the levels specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and, Prepare sole source (including brand name) justifications using the format at, Regarding your response to my second question, I have only seen in my office justifications called "JOFOCs" that cite as the authority 6.302-1. Would it be wrong to cite as the authority 41 U.S.C. And thanks everyone for commenting. 2. If I am procuring a supply item using the scenario above, then regardless of whether the item is brand name or not, the "justification" shall be identified as a "Justification for other than full and open competition." Agree with the first two answers. Note the instruction at FAR 13.501(a)(1)(ii): As I explained above, acquisitions under the test program are not subject to the requirement for full and open competition, thus you should modify the format to call it Sole Source Justification. 253( c)(1) - 6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements? 3. However, there really is no express "authority" for sole source acquisitions under FAR Subpart 13.5, which merely recognizes that they happen and must be justified. FAR 6.302-2 Urgent and Compelling Sole Sourcing Decisions One of the exceptions to Competition in Contract Act “full and open” requirements is that government contracting agencies make invoke an urgent and compelling situation. I am not saying one is right and one is wrong, just trying to figure this out. Powered by Invision Community, "Acquisitions conducted under simplified acquisition procedures are exempt from the requirements in Part 6. Just curious because I can't say that I have seen a justification in my office for a commercial item with the title "Sole Source Justification" or "Sole Source Justification and Approval." Justification and approval for what? The most frequently invoked justification for adopting a sole source procurement process is the first exception (FAR 6.302-1), i.e. Part 8 is dealing with FSS. ", Sole Source Acquisition under FAR Subpart 13.5, specific identification of the document as a ?Justification for other than full and open competition, specific identification of the document as a "Justification for other than full and open competition, Contracting Legislation of the Current Congress, http://www.psc.gov/directory/jofoctemplate.pdf. The justification may require the requestor to provide information such as: a description of the unique features that prohibit competition; The authority to be cited is the authority for sole source procurement.

Coconut Cookies At Home, Moncton Winter Weather, Hot Tamales Delivery, Rakul Preet Singh Instagram Controversy, Which Is Better Between Computer Science And Information Technology, Scope Of Biochemistry, Black Crop Top Long Sleeve, Extra Large Coccyx Cushion,