In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) exempts contracts that are issued or performed entirely outside the United States from restrictions on consolidation by excluding such contracts from their definition of “pool.” 24 An organization pools the services it purchases when it bundles activities previously provided from separate sources and purchases the services from a single provider under a single contract. The Ministry of Defense is paying increasing attention to this practice, as commercial companies report that the consolidation offers significant performance and cost potential. However, the objectives of the federal government differ from those of commercial enterprises in that federal regulations require the Air Force and other federal organizations to allocate a fair share of purchases and contracts to small businesses and to maintain free and open competition among potential service providers to the federal government. Small businesses typically do not have the scale of operations or expertise to provide service packages as prime contractors. This report discusses recent legislation to protect small business by ensuring that consolidation occurs only when it is likely to result in measurable efficiencies or cost reductions for the federal buyer. After examining the potential sources of such benefits, the authors propose a methodology by which purchasing agencies could gather information on when and how the services they purchase can be grouped and justify these decisions so that they comply with legal requirements. Once a small incumbent becomes aware of the proposed consolidation, it may file a challenge to the bid with the GAO, procurement agency or federal claims court65 to challenge the application on the basis that it would not result in measurable significant benefits to the agency or, alternatively, has not been approved by the required agency staff. However, such a protest must take place in a timely manner,66 and the protester must be justified.67 In addition, the protest forum must also be responsible for the protest.68 If the requirements have not already been established or fulfilled under separate smaller contracts, or if the resulting request is not “inappropriate” for a contract with a small business, there is no grouping – and restrictions on grouping, see below, do not apply. 1, 2013) (noting that the Agency had received several offers from small businesses to meet the allegedly consolidated requirements); Phoenix Scientific Corp., B-286817 (February 22, 2001) (referring to expressions of interest and offers from several small businesses).

At least one procurement activity also argued that procurement was not bundled if at least one small enterprise could meet the requirements, on the assumption that the definition of “bundling” includes only tenders that are not suitable for contracting with a small enterprise” and that a tender is not suitable for procurement to a small enterprise if a small business could execute it. See Nautical Eng`g, Inc., B-309955 (7 November 2007). The GAO has not supported this argument, but other GAO decisions raise questions about its chances of success. See, for example, TRS Research, B-290644 (September 13, 2002) (conclusion that the tender was consolidated in part because it was not suitable for a small business tender, even though the procurement activity had received a bid from a small business in response to the call). Justified bundling or bundling requirements offer a `significant possibility of subcontracting`71 Neither the law nor its implementing provisions define `significant tying`. It should be noted that the FAR requires agencies to provide OSDBUs or NPOs with the “same information” they provide to the RCPs described below. See 48 C.F.R. §19.202-1(e)(1)(iii). See, for example, Phoenix Scientific Corp., B-286817 (February 22, 2001) (“The scope of the CICA`s restrictions on joint purchasing is much broader than that of the restrictions on consolidation under the Small Business Act. For example, unlike the CICA`s restrictions, the consolidation provisions of the Small Business Act do not apply to large companies` arguments that parts of the consolidated supply should be outsourced for competitive purposes. There is also a difference in the format required to justify the consolidation. The Small Business Act requires organizations to demonstrate “substantial measurable benefits” to justify group purchases.

In contrast, the CICA allows tenders to contain restrictive terms and conditions only to the extent necessary to meet the Agency`s needs. Consolidation methodology for the reallocation of activities PDF The CICA was enacted under the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, P.L. 98-369, §§2701-2753, 98 Stat. 1175 (1984) and is codified in several titles of the United States Code, including Title 10 for defense procurement and Title 41 for government procurement. The ICCA generally requires that submissions contain restrictive conditions only to the extent necessary to meet the needs of the executive agency. 10 U.S.C. §2305(a)(1)(B)(2); 41 U.S.C. §3306(a)(2)(B).

If separate requirements are combined in a tender, competition may be restricted because companies that can only meet part of the requirements are excluded. For this reason, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other bid challenge forums require that procurement activities have an “appropriate basis” for consolidation. See, for example, Teximara, Inc., B-293221.2 (9 July 2004); Phoenix Scientific Corp., B-286817 (February 22, 2001). The provisions of the National Defence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 previously limited the “combination” of certain maintenance and repair requirements at the repository level, but were repealed in 2002. See P.L. 105-85, §359, 111 Stat. 1696-1700 (18 November 1997); P.L. 107-314, §333, 116 Stat. 2514 (December 2, 2002); Nat`l Airmotive Corp. v Cohen, No.

C 98-4381 SC,1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2150 (N.D. Cal., 25 February 1999). This definition is broader than the definition of “bundling” in two respects. First, it includes requirements already provided or met by non-small businesses, not just those already deployed or implemented by small businesses (or eligible for small business procurement). The definition of “consolidation” is so broad because it refers to requirements already provided or fulfilled under “two or more separate contracts” and “separate contract” is defined as “contract or contract”. One of the tasks of the SBS is to examine proposals from agencies to modify or dissolve set-aside for small businesses. advice and recommendations on proposed subcontracting plans; and advice on possible terminations in the event of late payments involving small businesses. 15 U.S.C.

§632(O)(2). See also 13 C.F.R. §125.1(e); 48 C.F.R. §2.101 “Small Separate Contract” is defined for the purposes of the combination as “a contract performed by one or more small businesses or capable of being awarded to 1 or more small businesses.” 15 U.S.C. §632(O)(3). See also 13 C.F.R. §125.1(s); 48 C.F.R. §2.101. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) implement the consolidation and consolidation provisions of the Small Business Act discussed in this report. FAR and SBA regulations are generally the same, although there can sometimes be slight differences between them. Compare 48 C.F.R.

§7.107(b)(1)-(c) (2012) (specifying the monetary thresholds used to determine whether consolidation is necessary and justified at $9.4 million and $94 million, respectively) to 13 C.F.R. §125.2(d)(5)(i)(A)-(B) (2012) (with the same thresholds as $8.6 million and $86 million, respectively).