scribed as a contracting environment, in which “all responsible sources are permitted to submit bids, quotes or proposals.” To maximize competi- tion, we publicize proposed contract actions to ensure that all responsible sources are aware of the requirement and can submit offers. Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources FAR subpart 6.2/RFO FAR 6.102 dis - cuss the second category of competi- tion, FAOC after exclusion of sources. Many of these are based on statutory exceptions to FAOC. As you might ex- pect, in these cases we will exclude certain companies or categories of companies but obtain FAOC among those not excluded. Examples of groups that may be excluded include large businesses (resulting in FAOC among small businesses) or nonlocal firms during a natural disaster (result - ing in FAOC among local businesses). We may also perform FAOC after exclusion of sources to limit com- petition to various socioeconomic categories such as service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), women-owned small business (WOSB), etc. As you might suspect, once we exclude everyone except SDVOSBs, we would solicit FAOC among the SDVOSBs. None of the above actions requires additional documentation or approval as they are specifically authorized by statute. The final category within this level of competition is to establish or maintain alternative sources. For example, perhaps one manufacturer always wins contracts for tanks. We do not want it to be the only com- pany able to provide them. We need to grow the industrial base. So, we would execute a Determination and Find- ings to exclude that company from a particular competition, allowing all other responsible tank manufactur- ers to compete fully. The RFO DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Informa- tion (PGI) 206.102-1(b)) even includes a sample Determination and Findings document. While this might be more
In my experience, some customers opine that the use of competitive procedures delays the process and may result in
inferior products or services (when compared to their preferred source). However, in the bigger scheme, competition more often has the exact opposite result.
3. Other than FAOC . FAR subpart 6.3/ RFO FAR 6.103 We will discuss each in turn. Of note, RFO FAR 6.001(a), FAR part 6 does not apply to contracts awarded using simplified acquisition proce- dures. But FAR 13.104 has its own re - quirements for maximum practicable competition. This is different from FAOC; processes and approvals are different for actions under the sim - plified acquisition threshold. Full and Open Competition FAOC is not specifically defined in FAR parts 2 or 6, although com- petition is discussed throughout the FAR, especially in FAR parts 6 and 15. However, FAR 6.102 /RFO FAR 6.101 do identify procedures that provide for FAOC. These are the use of sealed bids (which may be used only when multiple offers are expected—hence requiring competition), and competi- tive proposals, a combination of pro- cedures or special procedures used in specific cases. Examples would in - clude use of broad agency announce- ments when contracting for research and development, use of Federal Sup- ply Schedules, etc. These special situ- ations are beyond the scope of this article. The concept of FAOC is also closely aligned with the concept of publiciz- ing contract actions as discussed in FAR part 5 . Publicly posting proposed contract actions enhances competi- tion and opportunities for small busi- nesses. This will be a topic for a future article. But, in brief, FAOC can be de-
Acquisition Regulation, the predeces- sor to the Federal Acquisition Regula- tion (FAR) and DoD FAR Supplement (DFARS) prior to 1984. Pre-CICA, requirements for com- petition were less stringent. In fact, the emphasis was on the procure- ment method. We were required to use formal advertising (now known as sealed bidding) rather than con- tracting by negotiation unless we met and documented one of 17 ex - ceptions such as national security, perishable subsistence, etc. (Table 1). The very nature of formal adver - tising ensured transparency and was founded on an assumption that com- petition was a given. This all changed with the advent of CICA and publica- tion of the FAR . CICA (and the FAR) be- came effective in 1984 and required “each executive agency to allow and encourage the maximum number of sources to submit sealed bids or competitive proposals before enter- ing into any contract for the procure- ment of property or services.” (Note the addition of competitive proposals as a desired methodology.) It also dif- ferentiated “requirements for use of limited competition and noncompeti- tive practices in procurement.” Under CICA, three levels of com- petition are now discussed in the FAR part 6, Competition Requirements . 1. Full and open competition (FAOC) . FAR subpart 6.1/RFO, FAR 6.101 2. FAOC after exclusion of sources . FAR subpart 6.2/RFO FAR 6.102
18 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MARCH – APRIL 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker