FAR Case 2008-006, enhanced Competition for Task and Delivery Order Contracts-Section 843 of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (Comment #1)

FAR 16.501(d) currently states that the statutory multiple award preference is not applicable to the procurement of architect-engineering (A-E) services when such services are procured in accordance with the procedures of FAR Part 36.6. By definition, Brooks Act procedures will result in a single award to the most highly qualified firm and thus, it seems moot to have to obtain the head of agency determination when procuring A-E services using FAR Part 36.6 or the Brooks Act. . The proposed revisions to FAR 16.504 do not specifically address whether the exemption from the statutory multiple award preference for A-E contracts, procured in accordance with FAR 36.6, nullifies the need for the head of agency single award determination. Some feel that the $100M threshold applies to all task/delivery order contracts regardless of the procedures that were used to select the proposed contractors. Others feel that the head of agency determination is simply not required because the entire basis of the requirement is the statutory multiple award preference for which A-E contracts procured in accordance with FAR 36.6 are exempt. Therefore, to clarify applicability of the head of agency determination to A-E contracts procured in accordance with the FAR 36.6 (Brooks Act), please clarify this issue in the final rule. If a head of agency determination applies, could a fifth reason for A-E contracts procured in accordance of FAR 36.6 (Brooks Act) be added to the current list of four reasons? As it stands now, folks are finding it difficult to select one of the four reasons when procuring A-E services using procedures of FAR 36.6. Thank you for allowing me to comment on this FAR case. I look forward to your response to my comment when the final rule is issued.