Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)

@GABEIt would be nice for everyone to know what you are referring to (See rule 16, for instance). Thank you in advance.

joel hoffman said:

@GABEIt would be nice for everyone to know what you are referring to (See rule 16, for instance). Thank you in advance.

JOFOC-Justification For Other Than Full and Open Competition 

My apologies.

GABE said:

Looking for laws, regulations or rulings in relation to creating multiple justifications to avoid proper authority approvals?

More specific, as aware, the splitting of orders to circumvent competition is prohibited. Is the same regarding JFOCS, as referenced with part 6?

Splitting is splitting.  But I am having trouble relating your questions to FAR part 6 and reference to JOFOC.  Having looked at each of the exceptions what thresholds are applicable?  Or stated another way FAR part 6 as applicable to acquisitions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold do not have additional dollar thresholds.

GABE said:

JFOC-Justification For Other Than Full and Open Competition 

My apologies.

I thought that it might be the plural of “JFOC - Joint Future Operational Capability”. Please excuse my ignorance. 🤠  

I would never had guessed JFOCS means the plural (“s”) for (“J”) justification (“F”) for (“O”) other than free and open (“C”)  competition.  🤪

The standard terminology/abbreviation throughout the government is JOFOC or JOFOCs for plural.

Are you asking about splitting requirements? 

My definition: Having a known requirement that is larger than the applicable dollar thresholds and dividing that requirement with the intent to purposely circumvent those thresholds. 

In your case, the purpose of splitting requirements would be to lower the dollar value of action, and thereby lowering the non-competitive approval authority, right?  You have a $1,000,000 sole-source contract needing approval by the Advocate for Competition.  You do not want to seek AOC approval, so you split the requirement into two $500,000 contracts, now the Contracting Officer can approve the JOFOC, rather than the AOC.

If splitting requirements is done in collusion with a contractor, or with the intent of directing the award, it is fraud, more precisely Fraudulent Sole Sourcing.  Dust off your Contract Attorney's Deskbook, flip to Chapter 28 Procurement Fraud, and read all about it.

If splitting requirements is done without collusion, for more prosaic reasons, it's not fraud per se, but it is...ethically questionable.  The actual experts here on Wifcon will know more than me about this.

formerfed said:

The standard terminology/abbreviation throughout the government is JOFOC or JOFOCs for plural.

Yes, indeed. At any rate, Bob’s rule 16 says to avoid abbreviations (especially if they are incorrectly spelled). 🤗

joel hoffman said:

Yes, indeed. At any rate, Bob’s rule 16 says to avoid abbreviations (especially if they are incorrectly spelled). 🤗

I apologize in regards to spelling.

General.Zhukov said:

Are you asking about splitting requirements? 

My definition: Having a known requirement that is larger than the applicable dollar thresholds and dividing that requirement with the intent to purposely circumvent those thresholds. 

In your case, the purpose of splitting requirements would be to lower the dollar value of action, and thereby lowering the non-competitive approval authority, right?  You have a $1,000,000 sole-source contract needing approval by the Advocate for Competition.  You do not want to seek AOC approval, so you split the requirement into two $500,000 contracts, now the Contracting Officer can approve the JOFOC, rather than the AOC.

If splitting requirements is done in collusion with a contractor, or with the intent of directing the award, it is fraud, more precisely Fraudulent Sole Sourcing.  Dust off your Contract Attorney's Deskbook, flip to Chapter 28 Procurement Fraud, and read all about it.

If splitting requirements is done without collusion, for more prosaic reasons, it's not fraud per se, but it is...ethically questionable.  The actual experts here on Wifcon will know more than me about this.

Greatly appreciate the response. Multiple JOFOCS corresponding to multiple awards to circumvent approvals for both, the JOFOCS and Awards.

When I spelled out JOFOC I used the wrong acronym.  I corrected it now.

Bob- that was only due to my error.

The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School.  (TJAGLCS)

I've been trying to find the online Deskbook.  All I'm getting is a dead site.  Has the Judge Advocate site moved to another url or is it unavailable due to maintenance, etc.?

I was trying to help GABE in his request about splitting purchases and found the following report from 2014.

FEDERAL CONTRACTING:  Noncompetitive Contracts Based on Urgency Need Additional Oversight, (p. 35)

Quote

Air Force officials observed that contracting officers were splitting requirements across multiple justifications at lower approval thresholds, which reduced oversight by higher level approving officials. The Navy has a similar policy in place and DLA officials told us they are planning to implement a similar process. The Army, which has added increased scrutiny of justifications particularly for urgency awards as one its goals for improving competition, is in the process of revising its guidance for preparing justifications to include a process similar to that of the Air Force.

bob7947 said:

The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School.  (TJAGLCS)

I've been trying to find the online Deskbook.  All I'm getting is a dead site.  Has the Judge Advocate site moved to another url or is it unavailable due to maintenance, etc.?

I couldn’t get in either.  But I can see the 2022 version from the Library of Congress site  https://www.loc.gov/item/2022676552/

On 12/17/2023 at 9:56 AM, formerfed said:

I couldn’t get in either.  But I can see the 2022 version from the Library of Congress site  https://www.loc.gov/item/2022676552/

The Army JAG School Deskbooks can be found here: Deskbooks & Handbooks - The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center & School - TJAGLCS (army.mil)

Thank you for all the replies. I have one additional question, which is relevant to topic. Is there anything written (law, regulation) that would preclude the head of contracting agency to also be designated as the advocate for competition? Seems doing so may be deemed a conflict of interest?

GABE said:

Thank you for all the replies. I have one additional question, which is relevant to topic. Is there anything written (law, regulation) that would preclude the head of contracting agency to also be designated as the advocate for competition? Seems doing so may be deemed a conflict of interest?

FAR 6.501 sets the sideboards.