ordering officer need not contact each multiple award contract holder before selecting a company for an order if all contract holders of this multiple award contract were given a fair op- portunity to be considered for each order. For example, the ordering office may post notice of the anticipated ac- tion on their web page and thus need not specifically contact each contract holder. When I used these types of contracts in the Army, we created a specific area on our website where we posted these types of contract oppor- tunities, available only to the multiple award contract holders. For orders over the SAT and up to $6 million, each order must be placed on a competitive basis to achieve fair opportunity. The ordering officer must provide a fair notice to all contract holders of this multiple award that the government intends to make a purchase, including a description of the requirement and on what basis selection will be made (i.e., evalu- ation factors), affording them a fair opportunity to submit an offer for fair evaluation. For orders of more than $6 mil- lion, the definition of fair opportunity is more detailed. The ordering officer must provide all of the following to all awardees: • A notice that includes a clear state- ment of the requirement. • A reasonable response period. • Disclosure of significant factors and subfactors (including cost or price) and their relative importance. • Written documentation (if the award will be made on a best-value basis) of the basis for award and relative importance of cost or price and quality factors. • An opportunity for a post-award debriefing. DoD has more debrief- ing requirements for orders of over $10 million at Defense Federal Ac- quisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 216.505(b)(6). The ordering officer must also consider past performance on ear- lier orders under the contract, the
potential impact on other orders, minimum order requirements, a rea- sonable response time for the notice, and potential outreach efforts. DFARS 216.505(b)(1) imposes restrictions on the use of Low Priced Technically Acceptable evaluations and reverse auctions. It is critical to note that formal evaluation plans or scoring of offers are not required. This came up in a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision involving Inmar- sat Government, Inc. , which is compelling reading in terms of the difference in evaluation procedures under FAR sub- part 16.5 vs. FAR part 15. Specifically, your award should be sustained if you (1) state in your solicitation that you will not be using FAR part 15 proce- dures, (2) explain the procedures you will use, and (3) follow those proce- As with most things, there are statutory exceptions to the require- ment for fair opportunity discussed in FAR 16.505(b)(2). While FAR part 6 competition requirements do not apply, several of these exceptions are similar to those found in FAR 6.302. They include: dures during evaluation. Exceptions to Fair Opportunity • Urgency such that fair opportunity would cause unacceptable delays. • Unique or specialized supplies or services.
Important Clarifications 1. In this article, the phrase “contracting officer” re- fers to the individual who awarded the initial MATOCs, and “ordering officer” refers to those individuals placing orders under them. The contract- ing officer awards the MATOC and can place orders on it; the ordering officer may be the initial contracting officer or an- other individual authorized to place orders. 2. This discussion focuses on contracts awarded under Federal Acquisition Regu- lation (FAR) subpart 16.5. It does not apply to orders under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule program. Similar but not identical procedures apply as dis- cussed in FAR subpart 8.4.
• A logical follow-on to a prior order that was awarded using fair oppor- tunity in the interest of economy or efficiency. • Necessary to meet a minimum guarantee (remember that IDTCs have a minimum guarantee).
May-June 2025 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION | 39
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker