Notwithstanding the establishment of the agreement, the Government is not obligated to ever place any orders. The guidance I have looked at from NASA for BPA-type vehicles cites FAR 16.505 and emphasizes that “air opportunity must be maintained.” That said, I would point out that a BPA is not a contract as is an IDIQ described under this subpart and section. My understanding is that a CUPA is substantially similar to other types of BPAs in most respects.
After all, they are making a fee in the process. I would contact the SEWP administration office for the agency and confirm that they are still promoting/sponsoring this type of vehicle and accepting such orders. NASA refers to this as a custom user purchase agreement (CUPA). About ten years ago I set up a BPA-type vehicle off a SEWP contract. Although NASA may describe the concept of a delivery order with options, this is not the route I would take. It sounds like you have a recurrent need, which per your market research can best be fulfilled via SEWP. The NASA SEWP FAQs have the following question and response:Ĭan anybody speak generally about whether awarding a BPA against a non-FSS IDIQ is permissible under the FAR? (Put the merits of doing so aside.) Or that BPAs should be reigned in a little bit. My opinion is that certain types of IDIQs should have the same BPA capabilities (and restrictions) as FSS contracts. If a buyer has particular, justified, cross-cutting needs (for instance, for vendors with a 24/7 help desk, or for vendors that are certified a certain way, or even just to get lower prices with some companies with some relevant past performance) - wouldn't it make sense to allow the Government to narrow the IDIQ field one time and use that for future fair opportunities and purchases? Not forever, and not for everything.but to a limited scope. However, these slices don't always meet Government needs. The IDIQs in this space are generally large (many awardees) and sliced one particular way usually, by small business status, like with SEWP, but sometimes by technology scope. However, I do believe there are times where doing so makes good sense. No one is awarding a BPA against a non-FSS IDIQ. Am I missing something?Ĭan anybody speak generally about whether awarding a BPA against a non-FSS IDIQ is permissible under the FAR? (Put the merits of doing so aside.) The fact that NASA's explanation of DOWO mentions neither of these seems to be an oversight.
It seems to me that in order for the DOWO concept to comply with 16.505(b), you would need either quantity options or a "logical follow-on" exception to fair opportunity. (The response does not give the sense that it was written by a government contracts person.)ĭoes anybody know what the quoted response might mean? NASA states that the DOWO procedure can be compliant with FAR 16.505(b), then goes on to state the steps for setting one up. "DOWO" seems to be a NASA-coined term, whereby an initial delivery order contains terms allowing subsequent orders against the same quote. The response goes on to state that "Delivery Orders with Options (DOWOs)" are permissible and provide some of the same features as a BPA.
SEWP does not have a structure available that is identical to Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs). Are BPAs/Blanket Purchase Agreements allowed on SEWP?
0 kommentar(er)
