SAP without limitation

I assume you are talking about under RFO, so it would be eliminate parts 14 and 15 and just use 13 for all non-commercial supplies and services ? Or are you talking about removing the $9M threshold at 12.201 and just have those procedures and still have the same parts 13,14, and 15?

I think the “what could the problem be” will be dependent upon what we are buying.

Not referring to the RFO. Assume there would be no dollar limitation for using SAP--commercial or not.

uva383 said:

I think the “what could the problem be” will be dependent upon what we are buying.

What would be an example of there being a problem with the authority to use SAP for something exceeding the existing dollar limitations?

It’s not that I think it would be a “problem” but it would be interesting to see what achieves better outcomes.

Could the AF have bought the B-21 raider using SAP? I suppose they could. Would it achieve a better outcome than how it was purchased? It’s an interesting hypothetical. Could the Navy use SAP to purchase the F/A-XX? How about the FAA’s next generation air traffic system.

I think it all comes back to the requirements, how they are defined, and what risks the govt is willing to accept with regard to unsuccessful outcomes.

Keep in mind FAR part 13 permits use of any appropriate combination of the procedures in parts 13, 14, 15, 35, or 36.

It would be great simplicity for the clueless who just want an award with the least effort. As for the taxpayers, whose interests may concern how much stuff will cost, will their best interests be served?

Of course a great many citizens (and aliens in the country) don’t seem to care that there has been almost $2 trillion dollar annual deficits for some years now.

Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

Hasn't this been the question raised ever since FAR Part 12 came into being as related to the legal effect of a quotation. Does not the commercial sector operate of sorts in the world of what the Federal government calls simplified procedures for all kinds of things, or stated another way not as formal as prescribed for Federal acquisitions? Conclusion SAP is formal term for how to play the game within Federal acquisition.

Don Mansfield said:

Keep in mind FAR part 13 permits use of any appropriate combination of the procedures in parts 13, 14, 15, 35, or 36.

Yes but is it still SAP when combined? FAR 12.201-2 suggests to me that such a "combination" acquisition becomes other than one completed via SAP.

C Culham said:

Hasn't this been the question raised ever since FAR Part 12 came into being as related to the legal effect of a quotation. Does not the commercial sector operate of sorts in the world of what the Federal government calls simplified procedures for all kinds of things, or stated another way not as formal as prescribed for Federal acquisitions? Conclusion SAP is formal term for how to play the game within Federal acquisition.

Yes but is it still SAP when combined? FAR 12.201-2 suggests to me that such a "combination" acquisition becomes other than one completed via SAP.

Disregard the RFO. Assume the current FAR permitted use of FAR part 13 without a dollar limitation.

joel hoffman said:

It would be great simplicity for the clueless who just want an award with the least effort. As for the taxpayers, whose interests may concern how much stuff will cost, will their best interests be served?

I interpret this as a risk that the Government would generally pay more. Why do you think this would necessarily be the case?

Don Mansfield said:

Keep in mind FAR part 13 permits use of any appropriate combination of the procedures in parts 13, 14, 15, 35, or 36.

As a practitioner, I view federal acquisition as having risk tiers. The Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) serves as the primary—though not sole—demarcation for low-risk acquisitions. Removing this limitation would allow low-risk procedures to be applied to acquisitions that would traditionally be categorized as medium or higher risk due to their dollar value. Scenarios:

1. High $ and Low Risk. Much is gained (speed, simplicity) without much or any downside. Nothing is wrong with this.

2. High $ and Medium+ Risk. If the risks are known and dealt with appropriately - which means doing more scrutiny and risk mitigation that is required by SAP, aka using an appropriate combination of procedures in 13, 14, 15, 35 or 36 - nothing is wrong, I think.

3. High $ and Medium+ Risk. If the risks aren't known and/or aren't dealt with appropriately - bad.

What could go wrong depends on the decisions of COs deciding what to do with an acquisition that is high $ and probably needs more scrutiny than doing only what is required under SAP. Are they going to listen to the little angel on their right shoulder and go with #2, or listen to the devil and go with #3? What are their incentives?

Also, there are other and better ways than $ and FAR Parts for appropriately identifying and mitigating risk.

Finally, I suspect the impact - or what could go wrong - about unlimited SAPs is very different for DoD vs. everyone else. DoD does perhaps twice as many actions >$9 million than all other agencies combined. So for the DoD upside of removing the limitation is probably more than for anyone else (they would take advantage of it far more), and the potential downside might be less since DoD (presumably) has scale-dependent controls and risk-mitigation procedures that civilian agencies just don't have.

On 2/12/2026 at 10:50 AM, Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

More that I have time to list.

On 2/12/2026 at 9:50 AM, Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

On 2/12/2026 at 7:54 PM, Don Mansfield said:

Keep in mind FAR part 13 permits use of any appropriate combination of the procedures in parts 13, 14, 15, 35, or 36.

Don Mansfield said:

Disregard the RFO. Assume the current FAR permitted use of FAR part 13 without a dollar limitation.

Well I am confused. Here is why.

The SAP is a term of art with regard to the Federal government. So to me the premise of your question as clarified with the "disregard" is confusing. What you are really suggesting in my view is what if there was no such thing as the SAP and as such the FAR. I can see lots of issues that would arise. My simple example imagine sandlot baseball versus major league baseball. Rules matter especially when it is implied that about 267 million people can play the game.

On 2/12/2026 at 10:50 AM, Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

Don loves asking provocative questions. It's part of his Socratic method. 😁

The stated purposes of SAP in the current FAR 13.002 are as follows:

(a) Reduce administrative costs;

(b) Improve opportunities for small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns to obtain a fair proportion of Government contracts;

(c) Promote efficiency and economy in contracting; and

(d) Avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors.

The "procedures" are in FAR Subpart 13.1. FAR 13.106 describes the procedures for "soliciting competition, evaluation of quotations or offers, award and documentation." Read carefully, it does not describe procedures, i.e., step-by-step instructions of how to do something..

That being the case, I don't think allowing the use of SAP for all acquisitions would achieve any of the stated SAP purposes. What is would achieve is governmentwide procedural inconsistency, uncertainty, confusion, and hesitation.

Don will undoubtedly say that it would open acquisition up to innovation.

As I said: inconsistency, confusion, hesitation... and litigation.

If the mass of contracting officers and contract specialists were professionally well-educated and trained, it might be okay. But they aren't. They never have been, really. And they never will be. Because the government won't take measures to ensure that they are.

And please, don't mention DAU and FAI.

On 2/12/2026 at 12:50 PM, Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

On 2/13/2026 at 5:38 PM, Vern Edwards said:

More that I have time to list.

Comparing part 13 to 15, the first major difference I noted is that the loathsome rules concerning exchanges with industry would be gone -- which I think Vern would applaud.

Beyond that, do we assume the associated statutes are rescinded in this hypothetical? If not, I think very little changes in practice, since much of part 15 is based on statute.

FrankJon said:

Beyond that, do we assume the associated statutes are rescinded in this hypothetical? If not, I think very little changes in practice, since much of part 15 is based on statute.

I'm not sure exactly which statutes you are referring to, but any existing statute that does not apply when using SAP would remain inapplicable. That would include CICA and any statute that specifically applies to FAR part 15 source selection.

Don Mansfield said:

I'm not sure exactly which statutes you are referring to, but any existing statute that does not apply when using SAP would remain inapplicable. That would include CICA and any statute that specifically applies to FAR part 15 source selection.

I am still confused.

You have noted that the SAP per FAR Part 13 could be used in combination with other parts notably FAR Part 15. As I have noted one might conclude that if FAR Part 15 is used in combination then the statutes of FAR Part 15 then become applicable do they not? Or are you saying that if a SAP acquistion pursuant to FAR Part 13 and some of the processes provided for in FAR Part 15 are used in combination the only the applicable statutes of FAR Part 13 apply?

Leaning on one and not the other seems inconsistent with how a combined acquisition has be adjudicated when a conflict regarding it is taken to the courts.

This has become a very confusing thread.

Would the originator sort things out, please?

On 2/12/2026 at 9:50 AM, Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

I'm not the originator, but...

The heart of the original question is this: Should Congress and/or agency policy makers prescribe standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit individual agency contracting offices to use whatever procedures they like?

That's an IQ test.

Let me rephrase that--

Should Congress and/or the FAR Council mandate standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit agencies to decide which procedures to use within the guidelines of FAR part 13 (for any dollar value)?

@Don Mansfield Why did you leave out "Congress and/or agency policy makers" and substituter "the FAR Council"?

For instance, the FAR Council did not issue the DOD source selection procedures, which are dumb. DOD policy makers did.

The concept is interesting. But in practice it won’t work. Very few of the government workforce could successfully pull it off. Industry just won’t grasp it, solicitations will be confusing, and the contracting officer will get inundated with questions.

formerfed said:

The concept is interesting. But in practice it won’t work. Very few of the government workforce could successfully pull it off. Industry just won’t grasp it, solicitations will be confusing, and the contracting officer will get inundated with questions.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

Don Mansfield said:

Let me rephrase that--

Should Congress and/or the FAR Council mandate standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit agencies to decide which procedures to use within the guidelines of FAR part 13 (for any dollar value)?

At first blush my first thought aren't some agencies doing this anyways with their own unique ways to acquisitions. Example the evolution of what has become an IDIQ.

More specifically FAR Part 12 has allowed this to occur already up to $9 million but it would seem as formerfed notes agenices inability put doing so into practice. I do disagree that industry could not grasp it as I believe that industry does similiar every day. So yes I think Congress and the FAR Council should.

Vern Edwards said:

Why did you leave out "Congress and/or agency policy makers" and substituter "the FAR Council"?

In my view this is one of the top take homes for the War Department on acquisition reform even today. Get rid of departmental policy that is not statuorily supported. Examples upper level reviews that are just because.

Of course the above changes would require revamp of a whole lot more. The CO certification system and adequate funding to support the acquisition workforce quickly come to mind. Others include an educated Congress that realizes the annual political manipulation of the aquisition statutes cause continual churn and chaos and a judicial system who grasps the change when conflicts arise. To the latter my example may be too simplistic but how the courts maniputlated termination for cause to look like termination for default.

Vern Edwards said:

@Don Mansfield Why did you leave out "Congress and/or agency policy makers" and substituter "the FAR Council"?

For instance, the FAR Council did not issue the DOD source selection procedures, which are dumb. DOD policy makers did.

Because the dollar limitations come from Congress and are implemented by the FAR Council. If the dollar limitations went away, it's possible agencies would still impose use of standard procedures but that would be at their discretion.

C Culham said:

So yes I think Congress and the FAR Council should.

Should eliminate the dollar limitation on SAP?

Thanks for explaining.

I've stated my opinion. I'll step out now. Perhaps others will respond.

On 2/12/2026 at 10:50 AM, Don Mansfield said:

What would be wrong with permitting the use of SAP without a dollar limitation?

Don Mansfield said:

Should eliminate the dollar limitation on SAP?

Yes

One aspect not mentioned is industry reaction. The majority of contracting money goes to companies experienced in government contracting. They have organizational segments specialized in just doing business with the government with methodologies developed over years of experience. They like the status quo and don’t want the doors opened to others and approaches differing from the standard ways.

Don Mansfield said:

Should eliminate the dollar limitation on SAP?

formerfed said:

One aspect not mentioned is industry reaction. The majority of contracting money goes to companies experienced in government contracting. They have organizational segments specialized in just doing business with the government with methodologies developed over years of experience. They like the status quo and don’t want the doors opened to others and approaches differing from the standard ways.

I had the same thought as this thread progresses but then I wondered. Industry has accepted FAR Part 12 and the allowance to use SAP up to the $9 million threshold to the point that they defend it have they not? Seems they might embrace the idea of SAP as an option for everything.

I have also weighed Don's question against allowing Brooks Act like processes for all procurements. I struggle to decide what might be of most benefit.

On 2/20/2026 at 10:13 AM, C Culham said:

I have also weighed Don's question against allowing Brooks Act like processes for all procurements. I struggle to decide what might be of most benefit.

Given SAP allows any combination of procedures from 13, 14, 15, 35, and 36, wouldn't that include Brooks Act procedures?

Don Mansfield said:

Given SAP allows any combination of procedures from 13, 14, 15, 35, and 36, wouldn't that include Brooks Act procedures?

Don Mansfield said:

Given SAP allows any combination of procedures from 13, 14, 15, 35, and 36, wouldn't that include Brooks Act procedures?

I do not think so. A read of Part 36 in total reserves the Brooks Act process for A-E by my read. Same conclusion in a full read of FAR Part 13 where A-E is held out a different.

The Brooks Act authorizes and requires a Quality Based Selection (QBS) process without price competition - specifically for A-E contractor selection. Where price competition is required, QBS isn’t applicable.

Don Mansfield said:

Given SAP allows any combination of procedures from 13, 14, 15, 35, and 36, wouldn't that include Brooks Act procedures?

I think use of a qualifications based selection like the Brooks Act would be allowable using SAP. Because the Brooks Act is specifically for A-E, I wouldn't use that terminology in the solicitation to avoid confusion, but a similar process could be used. The RFO FAR part 15's highest technically rated with fair & reasonable pricing method is similar to QBS, but with the price proposal submitted the same time as technical. If use of that process is allowed under SAP, I can't think of anything that would prevent you from mimicking the Brooks Act's phased approach.

joel hoffman said:

The Brooks Act authorizes and requires a Quality Based Selection (QBS) process without price competition - specifically for A-E contractor selection. Where price competition is required, QBS isn’t applicable.

SAP requires price to be evaluated, but it doesn't necessarily require price competition, so I don't think this would prevent a QBS like process from being used. The competition requirement could be met by evaluating technical quotes (qualifications) of multiple vendors and then evaluating price for only the highest rated.

Joe Bernier said:

SAP requires price to be evaluated, but it doesn't necessarily require price competition, so I don't think this would prevent a QBS like process from being used. The competition requirement could be met by evaluating technical quotes (qualifications) of multiple vendors and then evaluating price for only the highest rated.

Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?

Don Mansfield said:

Let me rephrase that--

Should Congress and/or the FAR Council mandate standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit agencies to decide which procedures to use within the guidelines of FAR part 13 (for any dollar value)?

This has gotten confusing again. Here (above) is the question of the thread rephased in an attempt to avoid the confusion. I have followed the responses since this re-phrased question and the whole of responses keep going circular. In fact in reading and re-reading and then re-reading again I am honestly lost as it seems new questions have been posed that take the thread in different directions.

For example take this most recent question posed - "Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?" With regard to what is my question now? Are we talking the SAT and is so the FAR or the RFO as I believe the response is different if the FAR or if the RFO.

All said I will keep following the thread as I usually do but I believe it has significantly departed from its original intent.

C Culham said:

Should Congress and/or the FAR Council mandate standard procedures for contractor selection and contract formation, or should they permit agencies to decide which procedures to use within the guidelines of FAR part 13 (for any dollar value)?

Don's question is too complicated. Let's edit it.

Should Congress and the FAR Council repeal all statutes and regulations that mandate procedures for competitively awarding contracts and let contracting officers decide how best to do it?

Vern Edwards said:

Should Congress and the FAR Council repeal all statutes and regulations that mandate procedures for competitively awarding contracts and let contracting officers decide how best to do it?

No, chaos of all sorts would occur.

In an attempt to tie the originial question, re-phrased together, my thought is this. Giving CO's greater latitude to select a method to conducting an acquisition under the current structure of quotes, bids, negotiation inclusive of selecting contractors through a process of evaluating abilities only and then negotiating price/cost makes lots of sense as it would emulate what happens in the world outside of Federal contracting. But, there needs to be sideboards, but what has been likened to essay writing contests surely does not need to be used in all cases where it seems the pendulum has swung to.

C Culham said:

For example take this most recent question posed - "Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?" With regard to what is my question now? Are we talking the SAT and is so the FAR or the RFO as I believe the response is different if the FAR or if the RFO.

Carl,

I posed that question to @Joe Bernier

Vern Edwards said:

Should Congress and the FAR Council repeal all statutes and regulations that mandate procedures for competitively awarding contracts and let contracting officers decide how best to do it?

This might be a great test if Congress authorized it for a limited period. However only a few contracting officers could effectively carry it out. They would have to be carefully selected, provided desired outcomes and means to assess performance, and given empowerment and authority to independently implement.

Don Mansfield said:

Do you mean price has to be an evaluation factor or are you referring to the requirement to determine price reasonableness?

The requirement to determine prices are fair and reasonable.