Public Comments 2008-D010

Change being proposed to Position 7 and 8 of the PIIN should not be made because the PIINs are needed for preaward actions as well (e.g., RFQ, RFPs, IFBs). Changing the language will suggest that the PIIN for an RFP should reflect the year the contract award will be made and thus, it’s conceivable that an RFP issued in FY09 will be numbered with a “10” in the 7th and 8th position because actual award of the contract is projected to occur in FY10. And what happens if the award doesn’t happen until FY11? Highly recommend that the language remain unchanged because the year should match the FY when the contract action (RFP or actual contract) was issued/released. Perhaps revising the language to read “…year in which the contract action was issued/released” would be better than the word “assigned.”