Last revised (Transmittal 14-020) October 19, 2023

Guide to Judiciary Policy

Vol. 14: Procurement

Ch. 3: Purchasing Methods

§ 310 Procurement Sources

§ 310.10 Sources of Supply

§ 310.20 Workshop for People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled

§ 310.30 Randolph-Sheppard Act

§ 310.40 Judiciary-Wide Contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)

§ 310.50 GSA Federal Supply Schedules

§ 310.60 Other Federal Agency Contracts

§ 310.70 Open Market

§ 310.80 Vendors Offering Services for Public Use

§ 315 Publicizing Open Market Procurement Actions

§ 315.10 Policy

§ 315.20 Methods of Publicizing Procurement Notices

§ 320 Contractor Qualifications

§ 320.10 Responsible Prospective Contractors

§ 320.20 Determining Responsibility or Non-Responsibility

§ 320.30 Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

§ 320.40 Period of Debarment

§ 320.50 Procedural Requirements for Debarment

§ 320.60 Causes for Suspension

§ 325 Small Purchase Procedures

§ 325.10 Applicability

§ 325.15 Open Market Competition

§ 325.20 Competitive Small Purchase Procedures

§ 325.30 Soliciting Under Small Purchase Procedure

§ 325.35 Basis for Award

§ 325.40 Receipt and Evaluation of Quotations

§ 325.43 Ordering Methods Under Small Purchase Procedures

§ 325.45 Purchase Order

§ 325.50 Blanket Purchase Agreement

§ 325.55 Administration of Small Purchases

§ 330 Standard Competitive Contracting Procedures

§ 330.10 Applicability

§ 330.13 Pre-Offer Conference

§ 330.16 Amendment of Solicitations

§ 330.20 Cancellation of Solicitations

§ 330.23 Disclosure and Use of Information
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 2 

§ 330.26 Receipt of Offers

§ 330.30 Failure to Acknowledge Amendments

§ 330.33 Mistakes in Offers

§ 330.36 Evaluation of Offers

§ 330.40 Selection for Award

§ 330.43 Discussions with Offerors

§ 330.46 Rejection of All Offers

§ 330.50 Award Without Discussions

§ 330.53 Award with Discussions

§ 330.56 Conduct of Discussions

§ 330.60 Competitive Range

§ 330.63 Best and Final Offers

§ 330.66 Selection and Negotiation

§ 330.70 Award

§ 330.73 Award Debriefing

§ 332 Purchase of Services

§ 332.10 Service Contract Labor Standards

§ 332.20 Statutory Requirement

§ 332.30 Exemptions

§ 332.40 Obtaining Wage Determinations

§ 332.50 Required Clauses and Provisions

§ 335 Justifications and Approvals for Limiting Competition

§ 335.10 In General

§ 335.20 Procedures

§ 335.30 Limitations

§ 335.40 Justification Not Required

§ 335.50 Use of Brand Name Descriptions

§ 335.60 Limiting Competition – Open Market Purchases

§ 335.70 Process for Orders Against Established Multiple Award Contracts and 

BPAs – Open Market

§ 340 Unsolicited Offers

§ 340.10 Definition

§ 340.20 Judiciary Points of Contact

§ 340.30 Content of Unsolicited Offers

§ 340.40 Receipt and Initial Review

§ 340.50 Evaluation

§ 340.60 Criteria for Acceptance and Negotiation of an Unsolicited Offer

§ 340.70 Prohibitions

§ 340.80 Limited Use of Data

§ 345 Price Negotiations

§ 345.10 Establishing Negotiation Objectives

§ 345.20 Negotiation
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 3 

§ 345.30 Detailed Pricing Information

§ 345.40 Price Analysis

§ 345.50 Cost Analysis

§ 345.60 Negotiation Memorandum

§ 350 Judiciary Protest Procedures

§ 350.10 Policy

§ 350.20 Procedural Requirements

Appendices

Appx. 3A Sample Offering Letter to Randolph-Sheppard Agency

Appx. 3B Determination of Best Procurement Approach

Appx. 3C Determination and Findings for Time and Materials and Labor Hour GSA FSS 

Orders

§ 310 Procurement Sources

§ 310.10 Sources of Supply

§ 310.10.10 In General

When acquiring products and services, procuring officials must consider the following 

sources:

(a) Mandatory Sources

• Excess property available within the judiciary, or

• Workshops for people who are blind or severely disabled.

(b) Non-Mandatory Sources

• Existing judiciary contracts,

• GSA federal supply schedule contracts,

• Other federal agency contracts, or

• Open market.

§ 310.10.20 Market Research and Mandatory Sources

Once the judiciary has defined its requirement, it must perform market research to 

determine the sources capable of meeting its needs. When it is practicable, the 

judiciary must use excess property as the first source of supply. Any personal property 

under the control of the judiciary determined to no longer be required for its needs and 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 4

the discharge of its responsibilities is considered excess property. If excess property is 

not available, the judiciary must then check the procurement list maintained by the 

Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled. See: 

§ 310.20 (Workshop for People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled).

§ 310.10.30 Non-Mandatory Sources

If excess property and the Procurement List for People who are Blind or Severely 

Disabled cannot meet the requirement, non-mandatory sources should be reviewed, 

with potential cost to the judiciary as a primary consideration.

§ 310.10.40 Cost Factors to Consider

The following are some cost factors that should be considered when deciding which 

source will best meet the judiciary’s needs: transportation/shipping costs, administrative 

overhead for procurement, negotiated discounts, trade-in value, and extent of 

competition available. The source determination must be documented in the 

procurement file.

§ 310.10.50 Using Other Federal Agency Contracts

Other federal agency contracts (OFAC), which include government-wide agency 

contracts (GWACs), often impose a service charge on agencies to use the contract. 

This service charge covers the originating agency’s administrative expenses associated 

with awarding and administering the contract. It is commonly expressed as a 

percentage of the value of the order to be placed. The surcharge must be calculated 

into administrative overhead when selecting a source.

§ 310.20 Workshop for People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled

§ 310.20.10 Statutory Requirement

Under 41 U.S.C. §§ 8501–8506 and the implementing regulations (41 CFR chapter 51), 

federal government agencies, including the judiciary, must purchase certain products 

and services from qualified workshops employing people who are blind or severely 

disabled. The Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled

(Committee) determines what products and services are covered and the prices for 

those products and services. The program, previously called the Javits-Wagner O‘Day 

Program, has been renamed AbilityOne.

§ 310.20.20 Available Products or Services

The Committee maintains a procurement list of all products and services required to be 

purchased from participating nonprofit agencies. The procurement list is published and 

updated in the Federal Register. For the procurement list and further information on 

AbilityOne, see: AbilityOne website.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 5

Refer all questions on whether a product or service is on the procurement list to the 

Committee at info@abilityone.gov.

§ 310.20.30 Procedures

(a) The statute requires the judiciary to purchase products and services on 

the procurement list, at prices established by the Committee. Contracting 

Officers (COs) must obtain products and services from a participating 

nonprofit agency approved by a central nonprofit agency. The National 

Industries for the Blind (NIB) has been designated to represent nonprofit 

agencies for the blind. The National Institute for the Severely 

Handicapped (NISH) has been designated to represent participating 

nonprofit agencies employing persons with other severe disabilities.

(b) Central nonprofit agencies may authorize a CO to transmit orders for 

specific products or services, directly to a participating nonprofit agency. 

The written authorization remains valid until it is revoked by the central 

nonprofit agency or the Committee. The central nonprofit agency will 

specify the normal delivery or performance lead time required by the 

nonprofit agency. The purchasing office must reflect this lead time in its 

orders (but see: § 310.20.40(a)(1) (Purchase Exceptions)). COs should 

check GSA federal supply schedules and other commercial vendors’ 

catalogs for AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies. A designation of 

AbilityOne for their products and services allows COs to order directly 

from these authorized distributors for those products and services.

§ 310.20.40 Purchase Exceptions

Only if the procurement is granted an exception by the designated central nonprofit 

agency may purchasing offices acquire products or services on the procurement list 

from commercial sources. Under AbilityOne Regulations (41 CFR chapter 51), the 

following purchase exceptions apply:

(a) A central nonprofit agency (NIB or NISH) will normally grant a purchase 

exception for products or services on the Procurement List when both of 

the following conditions are met:

(1) the central nonprofit agency or one of its nonprofit agencies cannot 

furnish a product or service within the period specified, and

(2) the product or service is available from commercial sources in the 

quantities needed and much sooner than it will be available from 

the nonprofit agency.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 6

(b) The central nonprofit agency may also grant a purchase exception when 

the quantity involved is not sufficient to be furnished economically by the 

nonprofit agency.

(c) The Committee may also grant a purchase exception for the reasons 

provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(d) The central nonprofit agency is required to obtain the approval of the 

Committee before granting a purchase exception when the value of the 

procurement exceeds their authority.

(e) When the central nonprofit agency grants a purchase exception under the 

above conditions, it is required to do so promptly, and the exception 

should specify the quantities and delivery period covered by the exception.

(f) When a purchase exception is granted under paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) the CO must initiate commercial purchase actions within 15 days 

following the date of the purchase exception. The deadline may be 

extended by the central nonprofit agency (with the concurrence of 

the Committee, in cases of a procurement exceeding the central 

nonprofit agency’s authority).

(2) the CO must furnish a copy of the solicitation to the appropriate 

central nonprofit agency at the time it is issued, and a copy of the 

annotated offer abstract upon award of the commercial contract.

(g) Any decision by a central nonprofit agency regarding a purchase 

exception may be appealed to the Committee by the CO.

§ 310.20.50 Quality Requirements

Under AbilityOne regulations (41 CFR 51-6.10 (Quality of Merchandise)), the following 

applies:

(a) Products furnished under government specification by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities are 

required to be manufactured in strict compliance with such specifications. 

Where no specifications exist, products furnished are required to be of a 

quality equal to, or higher than, similar items available on the commercial 

market. Products are required to be inspected using nationally recognized 

test methods and procedures for sampling and inspection.

(b) Services furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind 

or have other severe disabilities are required to be performed according to 

government specifications and standards. Where no government 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 7

specifications and standards exist, the services are required to be 

performed according to commercial practices.

§ 310.20.60 Quality and Other Noncompliance Complaints

Under AbilityOne regulations (41 CFR 51-6.11 (Quality Complaints)), the following 

applies:

(a) When the quality of a product received is not considered satisfactory by 

the requesting office, the CO must take the following actions as 

appropriate:

(1) For products received from General Services Administration (GSA) 

supply distribution facilities or a specifically authorized supply 

source, the CO must notify the supplying agency in writing 

according to that agency’s procedures. The supplying agency will, 

in turn, provide copies of the notice to the nonprofit agency involved 

and its central nonprofit agency.

(2) For products received directly from nonprofit agencies employing 

persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, the CO 

must address complaints to the nonprofit agency involved, with a 

copy to the central nonprofit agency with which it is affiliated.

(b) When the quality of a service is not considered satisfactory by the 

purchasing office, the CO must address complaints to the nonprofit 

agency involved with a copy to the central nonprofit agency with which it is 

affiliated.

(c) When the central nonprofit agency or an individual nonprofit agency fails 

to comply with any of the terms of an order (e.g., quality, timeliness), the 

CO must make every effort to negotiate an adjustment before acting to 

cancel the order. When a CO cancels an order for failure to comply with its 

terms, the central nonprofit agency must be notified, and, if practicable, 

requested to reallocate the order. The central nonprofit agency will notify 

the Committee of any cancellation of an order and the reasons for that 

cancellation.

(d) Disputes between a nonprofit agency and a purchasing office arising out 

of matters covered in this paragraph, must be resolved, where possible, 

by the CO and the nonprofit agency, with assistance from the appropriate 

central nonprofit agency. Disputes that cannot be resolved by these 

parties must be referred to the Committee for resolution.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 8 

§ 310.20.70 Clauses

Solicitations and contracts that require the contractor to purchase products or services 

on the Procurement List for use in performance of their judiciary contract must include 

Clause 3-1, Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Products and Services. The CO 

must identify, in the contract, the products or services that must be purchased from any 

mandatory sources and the specific source to be used.

§ 310.30 Randolph-Sheppard Act

§ 310.30.10 Statutory Requirement

Under the Vending Facility program authorized by the Randolph-Sheppard Act 

(20 U.S.C. §§ 107, et seq) and the implementing regulations (34 CFR part 395), federal 

government agencies, including the judiciary, must give priority for the operation of 

vending facilities on federal property to blind persons licensed by a state agency.

§ 310.30.20 Procedures

A state licensing agency is charged with the responsibility for overseeing the RandolphSheppard program. Before initiating any action to obtain vending machines (such as 

coin-operated copiers and food vending operations), the judiciary organization must:

(a) obtain any required delegation from GSA, if the building is operated by 

GSA; and

(b) inform the state licensing agency of the court’s requirements.

§ 310.30.30 Records Maintenance

All procurement files for vending facilities must include a copy of the letter to the 

particular state licensing agency notifying it of the court’s requirements and the 

response received. If the state licensing agency declines the judiciary’s offer, their 

response must be maintained in the procurement file to substantiate a competitive 

solicitation. See: List of State Licensing Agencies. 

§ 310.30.40 Sample Offering Letter

See: Appx. 3A (Sample Offering Letter to Randolph-Sheppard Agency). 

§ 310.40 Judiciary-Wide Contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreements 

(BPAs)

§ 310.40.10 In General

The award of national contracts for use on a judiciary-wide basis offers advantages in:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 9

• reduced administrative effort,

• simplified supply of common-use products, and

• obtaining discounts for buying in volume.

§ 310.40.20 National Contract and BPA Management

The Procurement Management Division (PMD), of the Administrative Office’s (AO) 

Finance and Procurement Office (FPO), is responsible for establishing national 

contracts and designating the activities authorized to place orders. For a list of the 

products and services available under national contracts, see: JNet’s Judiciary-Wide 

Contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) page. Flexibility in purchasing 

arrangements is needed to meet judiciary customer service requirements through 

rapidly changing technologies. Therefore, use of national contracts is not mandatory.

§ 310.40.30 Contract and BPA Requirements

(a) When using national contracts, the delivery/task order must cite the 

applicable judiciary-wide contract for which the order is placed. The CO 

must follow the contract’s ordering procedures. The contract’s terms and 

conditions are applicable to the order. If conflicting terms or conditions are 

incorporated in an individual order, the terms of the contract will control.

(b) If the CO is required to solicit competitive quotes from more than one 

contractor before placing an order, the CO may use either technically 

acceptable/lowest price or best value as the basis of award. Note: 

Judiciary organizations, excluding the AO, are not delegated authority to 

conduct best value procurements and must obtain a one-time delegation 

from PMD before issuance of the solicitation and before award of the later 

contract.

§ 310.50 GSA Federal Supply Schedules

§ 310.50.10 In General

The Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program is also known as the GSA Schedules 

Program or the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Program. The FSS program is directed 

and managed by GSA and provides federal agencies (including the judiciary) with a 

simplified process for obtaining commercial products and services at prices associated 

with volume buying. Indefinite-delivery contracts are awarded to provide products and 

services at stated prices for given periods of time.

§ 310.50.13 Schedule Pricelists

(a) GSA schedule contracts require all schedule contractors to publish an 

“Authorized Federal Supply Schedule Pricelist” (pricelist). The pricelist 

contains all the products and services offered by a schedule contractor. In 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 10

addition, each pricelist contains the pricing and the terms and conditions 

pertaining to each Special Item Number (SIN) that is on schedule.

(b) The GSA schedule contractor is required to provide one copy of its 

pricelist to any ordering activity (judiciary contracting officer) upon request. 

Also, a copy of the pricelist may be obtained from FSS via email, from 

GSAeLibrary.gov, or by telephone at 1-800-488-3111. This subsection 

and the pricelists contain necessary information for placing delivery orders 

(for products) or task orders (for services) with schedule contractors.

§ 310.50.20 GSA Advantage!

GSA offers an online shopping service called GSA Advantage! through which judiciary 

COs may place orders against schedules. GSA Advantage! enables judiciary COs to 

search specific information (i.e., national stock number, part number, common name), 

review delivery options, place orders directly with schedule contractors, and pay for 

orders using the judiciary purchase card.

§ 310.50.23 eBuy

eBuy is GSA’s electronic Request for Quotation (RFQ) system and is a part of a suite of 

online tools that complement GSA Advantage! eBuy allows judiciary COs to post 

requirements and obtain quotes electronically. Posting an RFQ on eBuy:

(a) is one medium for providing fair notice to all schedule contractors offering 

such supplies and services, as required by § 310.50.43(c) (Orders 

exceeding GSA’s simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000)) and 

§ 310.50.46(c) (Orders using “best value” evaluation method); and 

(b) is required when an order contains brand name specifications (see: 

§ 310.50.66(b) (Limiting Sources Based on Items Particular to One 

Manufacturer (Brand Name))).

§ 310.50.26 Further Guidance

For more information or assistance on either GSA Advantage! or eBuy, contact GSA at 

gsa.advantage@gsa.gov.

§ 310.50.30 Inclusion of Items Not on Schedule

For administrative convenience, judiciary COs may add items not on the FSS (also 

called “open market items”) to an FSS BPA, or an individual task or delivery order only 

if:

(a) All applicable acquisition regulations related to the purchase of the items 

not on the FSS have been followed, such as publicizing (see: § 315 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 11

(Publicizing Open Market Procurement Actions)) and competition 

requirements (see: § 325 (Small Purchase Procedures));

(b) The judiciary CO has determined the price for the item(s) not on the FSS 

is fair and reasonable;

(c) The items are clearly labeled on the order as items not on the FSS; and

(d) All clauses applicable to items not on the FSS are included in the order. 

This includes the use of Clause 3-3, Provisions, Clauses, Terms and 

Conditions – Small Purchases and any other judiciary clauses that may be 

required.

§ 310.50.33 Use of GSA Schedules

Judiciary COs will issue delivery orders or task orders directly to the schedule 

contractors for the required products and services. The delivery or task order must cite 

the applicable GSA contract number from which the order is placed. When placing 

orders or establishing a BPA under FSS contracts (see: § 310.50.53 (Blanket Purchase 

Agreements Under GSA Schedules), judiciary COs must not seek competition outside 

of the schedules or synopsize the requirement on SAM.gov.

(a) Requirements

(1) The judiciary is required to follow the GSA schedule ordering 

procedures as stated in this subsection when placing an order or 

establishing a BPA for products or services. The procedures in this 

section apply to all schedules.

(2) For orders that exceed $550,000, the requiring/ordering agency 

must make a determination that the use of the schedule is the best 

procurement approach, using Guide, Vol. 14, Appx. 3B 

(Determination of Best Procurement Approach).

(3) Orders that are not fixed price, i.e. time and materials or labor hour, 

require a determination and finding (D&F) detailing why a fixedprice order is not suitable, using Guide, Vol. 14, Appx. 3C 

(Determination and Findings for Time and Materials and Labor 

Hour GSA FSS Orders).

(b) Orders against GSA FSS cannot be competed with open market, judiciarywide contracts, or OFACs. Orders placed under GSA schedules must be 

consistent with the judiciary’s policies and procedures, and within the 

contracting officer’s delegation authority. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 140 

(Contracting Officers Certification Program).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 12

§ 310.50.36 Clauses/Provisions Applicable to FSS Order

(a) Orders placed by a judiciary CO under FSS contracts must be consistent 

with the judiciary’s procurement program requirements applicable to the 

procurement of the product or service.

(b) When ordering from GSA FSS, the judiciary is required to follow the GSA 

schedule ordering procedures (see: § 310.50 (GSA Federal Supply 

Schedules)), the GSA contract’s terms and conditions, and GSA’s 

competition threshold (see: § 310.50.43(a) (Orders at or Below the GSA's 

Competition Threshold)).

(c) The CO may determine that judiciary specific clauses also apply. The CO 

may then add those to the order. See: Guide, Vol. 14, Appx. 1B 

(Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses). However, the CO should 

not include provisions or clauses that:

(1) are already part of the GSA contract (except as directed in judiciary 

procurement guidance);

(2) conflict with the GSA contract provisions or clauses; or

(3) create ambiguities when added to GSA contract provisions or 

clauses.

§ 310.50.40 Determination of Fair and Reasonable Price

(a) Products offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services 

offered on the schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at a fixed price 

for performance of a specific task (e.g., installation, maintenance, and 

repair).

(b) GSA has already determined the prices of products and fixed-price 

services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, under schedule 

contracts to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, judiciary COs are not 

required to make a separate determination of fair and reasonable pricing, 

except for a price evaluation as required by services requiring a statement 

of work. See: § 310.50.46 (Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a 

Statement of Work).

(c) Judiciary COs should seek additional discounts. However, COs must 

seek a price reduction when the order or BPA exceeds the GSA’s 

simplified acquisition threshold. Schedule contractors are not required to 

give price reductions that they extended to another ordering activity for a 

specific BPA or order. See: § 310.50.56 (Price Reductions).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 13

§ 310.50.43 Ordering Procedures for Supplies and Services Not Requiring a Statement of 

Work

Judiciary COs must use the ordering procedures of this subsection when placing an 

order for supplies or services not requiring a statement of work (SOW). The procedures 

outlined in the following table apply to all schedules. Whenever a written Request for 

Quotation (RFQ) is used, the judiciary CO must provide the RFQ to any schedule 

contractor who requests a copy of it. Written RFQs may also be posted to GSA’s 

electronic RFQ system, eBuy. See: § 310.50.23 (eBuy).

§ 310.50.43 Ordering Procedures for Supplies and Services

Not Requiring a Statement of Work

Procedure Details

(a) Orders at or below 

the GSA’s 

competition 

threshold, which is 

$10,000, except for:

(1) procurement of 

construction 

subject to Wage 

Rate 

Requirements

(Construction) 

(i.e., $2,000); 

and

(2) procurement of 

services subject 

to the Service 

Contract Labor 

Standards 

(SCLS) (i.e., 

$2,500).

Judiciary COs may place orders at, or below, GSA’s competition 

threshold with any Federal Supply Schedule contractor that can 

meet the agency’s needs. Although not required to solicit a 

specific number of schedule contractors, judiciary COs should 

attempt to distribute orders among contractors.

(b) Orders exceeding 

GSA’s competition 

threshold, but not 

exceeding GSA’s 

simplified acquisition 

threshold 

($250,000).

(1) Judiciary COs must place orders with the contractor that can 

provide the technically acceptable lowest priced (or best 

value, when applicable) supply or service. Before placing an 

order, the judiciary CO must:

(A) Consider reasonably available information about the 

supply or service offered under Federal Supply Schedule 

contracts by surveying at least three schedule 

contractors through the GSA Advantage! online shopping 

service, by reviewing the catalogs or pricelists of at least 

three schedule contractors, or by requesting quotations 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 14

§ 310.50.43 Ordering Procedures for Supplies and Services

Not Requiring a Statement of Work

Procedure Details

from at least three schedule contractors; or

(B) Document the circumstances for restricting consideration 

to fewer than three schedule contractors based on one of 

the reasons listed in § 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on 

Orders Placed Under Federal Supply Schedules).

(2) When the CO solicits pricing by sending an RFQ to at least 

three sources, receipt of at least one of the completed RFQs 

is considered adequate competition, since the pricing was 

prepared in a competitive environment.

(c) Orders exceeding 

GSA’s simplified 

acquisition threshold 

($250,000).

(1) Each order must be placed on a competitive basis unless this 

requirement is waived based on a justification that is 

prepared and approved according to § 310.50.63 (Limiting 

Sources on Orders Placed Under Federal Supply Schedules). 

The judiciary CO must:

(A) Provide an RFQ that includes a description of the 

supplies to be delivered or the services to be performed 

and the basis on which the selection will be made. See: 

§ 330.40 (Selection for Award); and

(B) Post the RFQ on eBuy to afford all schedule contractors 

offering the required supplies or services under the 

appropriate schedule(s) an opportunity to submit a quote;

or

(2) Provide the RFQ to as many schedule contractors as 

practicable, consistent with market research appropriate to 

the circumstances, to reasonably ensure that quotes will be 

received from at least three contractors that can fulfill the 

requirements. When fewer than three quotes are received 

from schedule contractors that can fulfill the requirement, the 

judiciary CO must prepare a written determination explaining 

that no additional contractors capable of fulfilling the 

requirement could be identified, despite reasonable efforts to 

do so. The determination must clearly explain efforts made 

to obtain quotes from at least three schedule contractors; 

as well as

(3) Ensure that all quotes received are fairly considered and 

award is made according to the selection basis stated in the 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 15

§ 310.50.43 Ordering Procedures for Supplies and Services

Not Requiring a Statement of Work

Procedure Details

RFQ; and

(4) When an order contains brand name specifications, the 

judiciary CO must post the RFQ on eBuy along with the 

justification or documentation, as required by § 310.50.66 

(Limiting Sources Based on Items Particular to One 

Manufacturer (Brand Name)). An RFQ is required when a 

purchase description specifies a brand name.

(d) Orders using “best 

value” evaluation 

method.

Orders using the best value methodology for evaluation must 

have a written RFQ and follow the procedures in § 310.50.46 

(Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of 

Work) for the corresponding dollar threshold.

§ 310.50.46 Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work

The following additional requirements apply when ordering services priced at hourly 

rates as established by the schedule contracts for services requiring an SOW. The 

applicable services will be identified in the FSS publications and the contractor’s 

pricelists. For services priced at hourly rates, the specific services required by the 

judiciary CO must be fully described in an SOW. All SOWs must include:

• the work to be performed,

• location of work,

• period of performance,

• deliverable schedule,

• applicable performance standards, and

• any special requirements (e.g., security clearances, travel, special 

knowledge, analysis of requirements, or system maintenance support).

§ 310.50.46 Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work

Type of Order Details

(a) Orders 

exceeding 

GSA’s 

competition 

threshold 

(generally 

$10,000) but 

not 

exceeding 

GSA’s 

The judiciary CO must place orders with the contractor that can provide 

the technically acceptable lowest priced supply or service. Before 

placing an order, the judiciary CO must:

(1) Develop an SOW according to information above.

(2) Provide the RFQ (including the SOW and evaluation criteria) to at 

least three schedule contractors that offer services that will meet the 

judiciary’s needs or document the circumstances for restricting 

consideration to fewer than three schedule contractors, based on 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 16

§ 310.50.46 Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work

Type of Order Details

simplified 

acquisition 

threshold 

($250,000).

one of the reasons in § 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on Orders 

Placed Under Federal Supply Schedules).

(3) Specify the type of order (i.e., firm-fixed-price, labor-hour) for the 

services identified in the SOW. Orders should be awarded on a fixed 

price basis. Use of other contract types requires a delegation of 

procurement authority for some COCP Level contracting officers 

(see: Guide, Vol. 14, § 140 (Contracting Officers Certification 

Program)).

(b) Orders 

exceeding 

GSA’s 

simplified 

acquisition 

threshold 

($250,000).

Each order must be placed on a competitive basis unless this 

requirement is waived on the basis of a justification that is prepared and 

approved according to § 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on Orders Placed 

Under Federal Supply Schedules). The judiciary CO must prepare an 

RFQ that includes an SOW and evaluation criteria. The CO must:

(1) Post the RFQ on eBuy to afford all schedule contractors offering the 

required services under the appropriate multiple-award schedule(s) 

an opportunity to submit a quote;

or

(2) Provide the RFQ to as many schedule contractors as practicable, 

consistent with market research appropriate to the circumstances, to 

reasonably ensure that quotes will be received from at least three 

contractors that can fulfill the requirements. When fewer than three 

quotes are received from schedule contractors that can fulfill the 

requirements, the contracting officer must prepare a written 

determination to explain that no additional contractors capable of 

fulfilling the requirements could be identified despite reasonable 

efforts to do so. The determination must clearly explain efforts made 

to obtain quotes from at least three schedule contractors;

as well as

(3) Ensure that all quotes received are fairly considered and award is 

made according to the evaluation criteria in the RFQ; and

(4) Provide the RFQ (including the SOW and evaluation criteria) to any 

schedule contractor who requests a copy.

(c) Orders using 

“best value” 

evaluation 

method.

(1) Requests for quotations that use “best value” evaluation method 

(price and other factors) must include a full description of the 

evaluation criteria. See: § 330.40.30 (Best Value Awards). This 

information must be disclosed with the solicitation to each potential 

offeror. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 210.70.30(b)(5) (Source Selection 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 17

§ 310.50.46 Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work

Type of Order Details

Processes).

(2) In addition to price, when determining best value, the judiciary CO 

may consider, among other factors, the following:

• past performance;

• special features of the product or service required for effective 

program performance;

• trade-in considerations;

• probable life of the item selected as compared with that of a 

comparable item;

• warranty considerations;

• maintenance availability;

• environmental and energy efficiency considerations; and

• delivery terms.

Note: Under the Contracting Officers’ Certification Program (COCP) 

(see: Guide, Vol. 14, § 140 (Contracting Officers Certification Program)), 

not all certification levels are authorized for “best value” procurements. 

The “best value” method of evaluation is more complex; therefore, only 

appropriately trained and certified COs may solicit for best value offers. 

For COs holding COCP certification levels not delegated this authority, 

the solicitation package using “best value” must be submitted to PMD for 

written approval before soliciting quotes.

(d) Services 

Priced at 

Hourly Rates

The judiciary CO is responsible for considering the level of effort and the 

mix of labor proposed to perform a specific task being ordered and for 

determining that the total price is reasonable.

§ 310.50.50 Evaluation and Award

(a) The judiciary CO must evaluate all responses received using the 

evaluation criteria provided to the schedule contractors in the RFQ.

(b) After the CO places an order, or establishes a BPA, with the schedule 

contractor, the CO must provide timely notification to unsuccessful 

offerors. If an unsuccessful offeror requests information on an award that 

was based on factors other than price alone, a brief explanation of the 

basis for the award decision must be provided.

§ 310.50.52 File Documentation

At a minimum, the judiciary CO must include the following documentation for each 

award:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 18

(a) the schedule contracts considered, noting the contractor from which the 

service was purchased;

(b) a description of the service purchased;

(c) the amount paid;

(d) the evaluation methodology used in selecting the contractor to receive the 

order;

(e) the rationale for any trade-offs, if trade-off methodology is used, in making 

the selection (required only when a best value evaluation methodology is 

used) (see: § 330.40.30 (Best Value Awards) and § 330.40.40 (Selection 

Documentation));

(f) the price reasonableness determination, which includes an assessment of 

the level of effort and labor mix, § 310.50.46(d) (Services Priced at Hourly 

Rates) (required only when an SOW is involved);

(g) the rationale for using other than a firm-fixed price order; and

(h) when an order exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, evidence of 

compliance with the ordering procedures at § 310.50.43(c) (Orders 

Exceeding GSA’s Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000)) or 

§ 310.50.46(c) (Orders Using “Best Value” Evaluation Method), whichever 

is applicable.

§ 310.50.53 Blanket Purchase Agreements Under GSA Schedules

(a) Use this subsection only for BPAs established under a GSA schedule. 

Single or multiple award BPAs established under the GSA schedules must 

use the same procedures outlined in § 310.50.43 (Ordering Procedures 

for Supplies and Services Not Requiring a Statement of Work) and 

§ 310.50.46 (Ordering Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of 

Work). For guidance on how to establish an open market BPA, see: 

§ 325.50 (Blanket Purchase Agreement).

(b) A BPA is an ordering agreement, not a contract. A BPA does not 

constitute a legally binding contract and may be established without an 

obligation of funds. Therefore, there is never an obligation of funds 

recorded based on a BPA award. Funds must be obligated at the time an 

order is placed under a BPA, unless the order is subject to the availability 

of funds and properly supported by Clause 7-115, Availability of Funds.

(1) BPAs against GSA Schedules are written agreements negotiated 

between a purchasing office and a GSA Schedule contractor that 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 19

contain agreed upon terms and conditions that will apply if and 

when an order is placed against the BPA for products or services.

(2) BPAs permit individuals that are designated in writing by name or 

title in the BPA, to place orders by telephone, over-the-counter, by 

email, or in writing. Regardless of how the order is placed, an 

obligation of funds must be recorded in the financial system at the 

time the order is placed, unless the order is subject to the 

availability of funds and properly supported by Clause 7-115, 

Availability of Funds.

(c) Use of GSA BPAs

Judiciary COs may establish BPAs under any schedule contract to fill 

repetitive needs for products or services.

(1) BPAs may be established under one or more schedule contractors’ 

GSA contract. The number of BPAs to be established is within the 

discretion of the judiciary CO establishing the BPAs and should be 

based on a strategy that is expected to maximize the effectiveness 

of the BPAs.

(2) BPAs must address the frequency of ordering, invoicing, discounts, 

requirements (e.g., estimated quantities, work to be performed), 

delivery locations, and time.

(d) Single Award BPA Under GSA

Judiciary COs should, to the maximum extent practicable, give preference 

to establishing multiple award BPAs, rather than establishing a single 

source BPA.

(1) No single award BPA with an estimated value exceeding $100 

million (including any options), may be awarded unless the 

Procurement Executive (PE) has determined in writing that:

(A) Orders under the BPA are so integrally related that only a 

single source can reasonably perform the work;

(B) The BPA provides for only firm-fixed priced orders for 

products with unit prices established in the BPA, or services 

with prices established in the BPA for specific tasks to be 

performed;

(C) Only one source is qualified and capable of performing the 

work at a reasonable price to the judiciary; or
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 20

(D) It is necessary in the public interest to award the BPA to a 

single source for exceptional circumstances.

(2) The requirement for determination for a single-award BPA greater 

than $100 million is in addition to any applicable requirement for a 

limited-sources justification at § 310.50.46 (Ordering Procedures for 

Services Requiring a Statement of Work). However, the two 

documents may be combined into one document.

(e) Multiple Award BPA Under GSA

A multiple award BPA involves awarding BPAs for the same class of 

products or services to more than one vendor.

(1) When establishing a multiple-award BPA, the judiciary CO must 

specify the procedures for placing orders under the BPAs according 

to § 310.50.43 (Ordering Procedures for Supplies and Services Not 

Requiring a Statement of Work) and § 310.50.46 (Ordering 

Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work), 

whichever is applicable.

(2) In determining to award a multiple award BPA or a single award 

BPA, the judiciary CO should consider the following factors and 

document the decision in the BPA file:

(A) the scope and complexity of the requirement(s);

(B) the need to periodically compare multiple technical 

approaches or prices;

(C) the administrative costs of BPAs; and

(D) the technical qualifications of the schedule contractor(s).

(f) Minimum Documentation

The judiciary CO must include, at a minimum, the following documentation 

in the BPA file:

(1) Schedule contracts considered, noting the contractor to which the 

BPA was awarded.

(2) Description of the supply or service purchased.

(3) Price.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 21

(4) Required justification for a limited source BPA, if applicable. See:

§ 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on Orders Placed Under Federal 

Supply Schedules).

(5) Determination for a single-award BPA exceeding $100 million, if 

applicable. See: § 310.50.53(d) (Single Award BPA Under GSA).

(6) Documentation supporting the decision to establish multiple award 

BPAs or a single-award BPA. See: § 310.50.53(d) (Single Award

BPA Under GSA) and § 310.50.53(e) (Multiple Award BPA Under 

GSA).

(7) Basis for the award decision. This should include the evaluation 

methodology used in selecting the contractor, the rationale for any 

trade-offs in making the selection (if “best value”), and a price 

reasonableness determination for services requiring an SOW.

§ 310.50.53(g) Ordering from BPAs under GSA Schedules

BPA Situation Procedures

(1) Single Award 

BPA

If the judiciary CO establishes one BPA, authorized users may place the 

order directly under the established BPA when the need for the product 

or service arises.

(2) Multiple 

Award BPAs

(A) Orders at or below the GSA competition threshold (generally 

$10,000). The judiciary CO may place orders at or below the GSA 

competition threshold with any BPA holder that can meet the 

agency’s needs. The ordering activity should attempt to distribute 

any such orders among the BPA holders.

(B) Orders exceeding the GSA’s competition threshold but not 

exceeding the GSA’s simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000).

(i) The judiciary CO must provide each multiple award BPA holder 

an opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding the 

GSA competition threshold, but not exceeding GSA’s simplified 

acquisition threshold unless one of the exceptions in § 310.50.63 

(Limiting Sources on Orders Placed Under Federal Supply 

Schedules).

(ii) The judiciary CO need not contact each of the multiple award 

BPA holders before placing an order if information is available to 

ensure that each BPA holder is provided an opportunity to be 

considered for each order.

(iii) The judiciary CO must document the circumstances when 

restricting consideration to less than all multiple award BPA 

holders offering the required supplies and services.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 22

§ 310.50.53(g) Ordering from BPAs under GSA Schedules

BPA Situation Procedures

(C) Orders exceeding GSA’s simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000)

unless one of the exceptions in § 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on 

Orders Placed Under Federal Supply Schedules).

(i) Provide an RFQ to all BPA holders offering the required supplies 

or services under the multiple award BPA, to include, a 

description of the supplies to be delivered or the services to be 

performed and the basis on which the selection will be made;

(ii) Afford all BPA holders responding to the RFQ an opportunity to 

submit a quote; and

(iii) Fairly consider all responses received and make award 

according to the selection procedures.

(D) The judiciary CO must document evidence of compliance with these 

procedures and the basis for the award decision.

(3) BPAs for 

Hourly Rate 

Services

(A) If the BPA is for hourly rate services, the judiciary CO must develop 

an SOW for each order covered by the BPA. Ordering activities 

should place these orders on a firm-fixed price basis to the maximum 

extent practicable.

(B) For time-and-materials and labor-hour orders, the contracting officer 

must follow the procedures in § 310.50.46(b) (Orders Exceeding 

GSA's Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000)) and 

§ 310.50.46(c) (Orders Using "Best Value" Evaluation Method). All 

orders under the BPA must specify a price for the performance of the 

tasks identified in the SOW.

(C) The ordering activity, specifically the CO, is responsible for 

considering the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed to 

perform a specific task being ordered, determining that the total price 

is reasonable through appropriate analysis techniques, and 

documenting this in the file.

(h) Duration of BPAs

(1) Multiple award BPAs generally should not exceed five years but 

may do so to meet program requirements.

(2) A single-award BPA must not exceed one year. It may have up to 

four one-year options.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 23

(3) Contractors may be awarded BPAs that extend beyond the current 

term of their GSA Schedule contract, so long as there are option 

periods in their GSA Schedule contract that, if exercised, will cover 

the BPA’s period of performance.

(i) Review of BPAs

(1) The judiciary CO must review the BPA at least once a year (e.g., at 

option exercise) and determine in writing whether:

(A) the schedule contract on which the BPA was established is 

still in effect;

(B) the BPA is still needed to fulfill the judiciary’s needs; and 

(C) estimated quantities/amounts have been exceeded and 

additional price reductions can be obtained.

(2) The determination must be included in the BPA file documentation.

§ 310.50.56 Price Reductions

Judiciary COs may request a price reduction at any time before placing an order, 

establishing a BPA, or in conjunction with the annual BPA review. However, the

judiciary CO must seek a price reduction when the order or BPA exceeds the GSA’s 

simplified acquisition threshold. Schedule contractors are not required to give price 

reductions that they extended to another ordering activity for a specific BPA or order.

§ 310.50.60 Authorized Resellers

If provided by the schedule, quotes may be solicited from and later awards may be 

made to any FSS contract holders or the schedule holder’s designated agents or 

authorized resellers. The designated agents or authorized resellers must be identified 

in the FSS contract. It is the CO’s responsibility to review the FSS schedule.

§ 310.50.63 Limiting Sources on Orders Placed under Federal Supply Schedules

Judiciary COs must justify an order or BPA that exceeds GSA’s competition threshold 

where the competition requirements outlined in § 310.50.43 (Ordering Procedures for 

Supplies and Services Not Requiring a Statement of Work) and § 310.50.46 (Ordering 

Procedures for Services Requiring a Statement of Work) are not met.

(a) For a proposed order or BPA with an estimated value exceeding GSA’s 

competition threshold (generally $10,000) not placed or established 

according to § 310.50.43 (Ordering Procedures for Supplies and Services 

Not Requiring a Statement of Work), § 310.50.46 (Ordering Procedures 

for Services Requiring a Statement of Work), or § 310.50.53(g) (Ordering 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 24

From BPAs Under GSA Schedules), the only circumstances that may 

justify the action are:

(1) An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the 

procedures would result in unacceptable delays;

(2) Only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services 

required at the level of quality required because the supplies or 

services are unique or highly specialized; or

(3) In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical 

follow-on to an original FSS order provided that the original order 

was placed according to the applicable FSS ordering procedures. 

The original order or BPA must not have been previously issued 

under sole-source or limited-sources procedures.

(b) For proposed orders or BPAs with an estimated value exceeding GSA’s 

micro-purchase threshold (generally $10,000), the judiciary CO must 

document the basis for limiting sources using Form AO 370C (Limited 

Sources Justification (LSJ)).

(c) Posting Requirement

(1) Within 14 days after placing an order or establishing a BPA

exceeding the GSA’s simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000) 

that is supported by a limited-sources justification permitted under 

any of the circumstances under paragraph (a) of this section, the 

judiciary CO must post the justification at SAM.gov, as well as post 

a link to the justification on the public web site of the judiciary 

organization or AO. For justifications citing subparagraph (a)(1) of 

this section, the justification must be posted within 30 days after 

award.

(2) Justifications must be posted for a minimum 30 calendar days.

(3) Contracting officers must carefully screen all justifications for 

contractor proprietary data and remove all such data, and such 

references and citations as are necessary to protect the proprietary 

data, before making the justifications available for public inspection. 

Judiciary COs should contact PMD for assistance with determining 

what information might be considered proprietary.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 25

§ 310.50.66 Limiting Sources Based on Items Particular to One Manufacturer (Brand 

Name)

An item that is particular to one manufacturer can be a particular brand name, product, 

or feature of a product that is particular to one manufacturer. A brand name item, 

whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one 

manufacturer.

(a) Brand name specifications must not be used unless the particular brand 

name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, 

and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or 

products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified 

to meet, the judiciary’s needs.

(b) For proposed orders or BPAs with an estimated value between GSA’s 

competition threshold and simplified acquisition threshold, $10,000 and 

$250,000, respectively, the judiciary CO must document the basis for 

restricting consideration to an item peculiar to one manufacturer. The 

judiciary CO must document the basis for limiting sources using Form AO 

370C (Limited Sources Justification (LSJ). If the estimated value is 

between $25,000 and $250,000, the documentation and the RFQ must be 

posted to eBuy.

(c) For proposed orders or BPAs with an estimated value exceeding GSA’s 

simplified acquisition threshold, $250,000, the judiciary CO must 

document the basis for restricting consideration to an item peculiar to one 

manufacturer using Form AO 370C. The justification must be completed 

and approved at the time the requirement for a brand name item is 

determined and must be posted with the RFQ to eBuy for the duration of 

the RFQ. Additionally, a justification for a brand name item is required at 

the order level for orders placed against previously awarded BPA’s when 

a justification for the brand name item was not completed for the BPA or 

does not adequately cover the requirements in the order.

§ 310.50.73 Payment

The judiciary may make payment for oral or written orders by any authorized means, 

including the judiciary’s purchase card.

§ 310.50.76 Order Placement

(a) To order products or services from schedule contractors, judiciary COs 

may place orders orally (except for services requiring an SOW or orders 

containing brand name specifications over $25,000), or use GSA Form 

OF 347 (Order for Supplies and Services) to order supplies or services 

from schedule contracts.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 26

(b) The judiciary CO must place an order directly with the contractor 

according to the terms and conditions of the pricelists.

(c) Before placing the order, the judiciary CO must ensure that the judiciary 

procurement program requirements have been complied with.

(d) Orders must include the following information in addition to any 

information required by the schedule contract:

(1) complete shipping and billing addresses;

(2) GSA contract number;

(3) judiciary order number and date;

(4) F.O.B. delivery point (i.e., origin or destination);

(5) discount terms;

(6) delivery time or period of performance;

(7) special item number (SIN) or national stock number (NSN);

(8) line item or subline item;

(9) an SOW for services, when required, or a brief, complete 

description of each item (when ordering by model number, features, 

and options, such as color, finish, and electrical characteristics, if 

available, must be specified);

(10) quantity and any variation in quantity;

(11) unit price;

(12) total price of order;

(13) where inspection and acceptance will take place;

(14) other relevant data (e.g., delivery instructions or receiving hours 

and size-or-truck limitations);

(15) marking requirements; and

(16) level of preservation, packaging, and packing.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 27

§ 310.50.80 Administration of GSA Schedule Orders

GSA is responsible for administering FSS contracts, and the judiciary may not change, 

terminate, or otherwise undertake administration of an FSS contract. However, judiciary 

COs are responsible for administration of individual orders placed against FSS 

contracts, according to the terms and conditions of the GSA schedule contract, and 

must deal directly with the contractor. Such functions include:

(a) inspecting and accepting products and services;

(b) making or arranging for payment;

(c) modifying orders;

(d) terminating orders for default and charging contractors with resulting 

excess costs; and

(e) terminating orders for the convenience of the judiciary.

§ 310.50.83 Inspection and Acceptance

(a) Supplies

(1) Receiving offices must inspect supplies at destination except when:

(A) the schedule contract indicates that mandatory source 

inspection is required to be performed by GSA; or

(B) a schedule item is covered by a product description, and the 

judiciary CO determines that GSA’s inspection assistance is 

needed (based on the ordering volume, the complexity of the 

supplies, or the past performance of the supplier).

(2) When GSA performs the inspection, the judiciary CO will provide 

two copies of the order specifying source inspection to the GSA 

contracting officer for that specific schedule contract. The GSA 

contracting officer will notify the judiciary CO of acceptance or 

rejection of the products.

(3) Material inspected at source by GSA and determined to conform 

with the product description of the schedule, must not be 

reinspected for the same purpose. The judiciary receiving office 

must limit inspection to kind, count, and condition on receipt.

(4) Unless otherwise provided in the schedule contract, acceptance is 

conclusive, except as regards latent defects, fraud, or such gross 

mistakes as amount to fraud.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 28

(b) Services

The judiciary CO has the right to inspect all services according to 

the contract requirements and as called for by the order. The 

judiciary CO must perform any inspections and tests specified in 

the order in a manner that will not unduly delay the work.

§ 310.50.86 Remedies for Nonconformance

(a) If a GSA schedule contractor delivers a product or service, but it does not 

conform to the order requirements, the judiciary CO must take appropriate 

action according to the inspection and acceptance clause of the GSA 

schedule contract, as supplemented by the order.

(b) If the contractor fails to perform an order, or take appropriate corrective 

action, the judiciary CO may terminate the order for cause or modify the 

order to establish a new delivery date (after obtaining consideration, as 

appropriate). Judiciary COs must comply with § 310.50.90 (Termination 

for Cause) when terminating an order for cause.

§ 310.50.90 Termination for Cause

(a) A judiciary CO may terminate individual orders for cause. Termination for 

cause must comply with the GSA regulations for commercial items and 

may include charging the contractor with excess costs resulting from 

repurchase. The PE must review and approve, in writing, all proposed 

terminations of GSA schedule orders whether for cause or convenience.

(b) The GSA schedule contracting officer must be notified of all instances 

where a judiciary CO has terminated for cause an individual order to an 

FSS contractor, or if fraud is suspected.

(c) If the contractor asserts that the failure to perform was excusable, the 

judiciary CO must follow the procedures at § 310.50.96 (Disputes with 

GSA Schedule Contractors).

(d) If the contractor is charged excess costs, the following apply:

(1) Any repurchase must be made at as low a price as reasonable, 

considering the quality required by the government, delivery 

requirements, and administrative expenses. Copies of all 

repurchase orders, except the copy furnished to the repurchase 

contractor or any other commercial concern must include the 

notation:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 29

Repurchase against the account of _________________ (insert 

contractor’s name) under Order _______________ (insert number)

under Contract ________________ (insert number).

(2) When excess costs are anticipated, the judiciary CO may withhold 

funds due the terminated contractor as offset security. Judiciary 

COs must minimize excess costs to be charged against the 

terminated contractor and collect or set-off any excess costs owed.

(3) If a judiciary CO is unable to collect excess repurchase costs, it 

must notify the GSA schedule contracting office after final payment 

to the repurchase contractor.

(A) The notice must include the following information about the 

terminated order:

• name and address of the contractor;

• schedule, contract, and order number;

• national stock number (NSN) or special item number(s) 

(SIN), and a brief description of the item(s);

• cost of schedule items involved;

• excess costs to be collected; and

• other relevant data.

(B) The notice must also include the following information about 

the repurchase contract:

• name and address of the contractor;

• item repurchase cost;

• repurchase order number and date of payment;

• contract number, if any; and

• other relevant data.

(e) Only the GSA schedule contracting officer may modify the schedule 

contract to terminate for cause any, or all, products or services covered by 

the schedule contract. If the GSA schedule contracting officer has 

terminated any products or services covered by the schedule contract, no 

further orders may be placed for those items. Orders placed before 

termination for cause must be fulfilled by the contractor, unless terminated 

for the convenience of the government by the judiciary CO.

§ 310.50.93 Termination for the Judiciary’s Convenience

(a) A judiciary CO may terminate individual orders for the government’s 

convenience. Terminations for the government’s convenience must 

comply with GSA’s regulations for commercial items included in the FSS 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 30

contract. The PE must review and approve, in writing, all proposed 

terminations whether for cause or convenience.

(b) Before terminating orders for the government’s convenience, the judiciary 

CO must endeavor to enter into a “no cost” settlement agreement with the 

contractor.

(c) Only the GSA schedule contracting officer may modify the schedule 

contract to terminate any, or all, products or services covered by the 

schedule contract for the government’s convenience.

§ 310.50.96 Disputes with GSA Schedule Contractors

Whenever possible, any disputes arising under orders placed by judiciary COs will be 

settled by the judiciary COs, within their COCP delegation authority. Above their 

delegation authority, the CO must refer the dispute to the PE. The following table 

outlines procedures for handling disputes with GSA schedule contractors.

§ 310.50.96 Disputes with GSA Schedule Contractors

Type of Dispute Details

(a) Disputes related to 

the performance of 

orders under a 

schedule contract

(1) Under GSA’s standard Disputes clause included in all 

schedule contracts, the judiciary CO may either:

(A) issue final decisions on disputes arising from performance 

of the order (but see: (b) below regarding disputes not 

relating to performance); or

(B) refer the dispute to the GSA schedule contracting officer 

for a decision.

(2) The judiciary CO must notify the GSA schedule contracting 

officer promptly of any final decision issued under (a)(1).

(b) Disputes related to 

the terms and 

conditions of 

schedule contracts

The judiciary CO must refer all disputes that relate to the schedule 

contract terms and conditions to the GSA schedule contracting 

officer for resolution under the “Disputes” clause of the schedule 

contract and notify the schedule contractor of the referral.

(c) Appeals Contractors may appeal final decisions pertaining to disputes 

arising under the schedule contract, as well as orders placed 

thereunder, according to the applicable “Disputes” clause.

(d) Judiciary disputes 

clause

Judiciary COs should include Clause 7-235 – Disputes in GSA 

RFQs, BPAs, and Orders.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 31

§ 310.60 Other Federal Agency Contracts

§ 310.60.10 In General

(a) The judiciary may use OFACs (also referred to as multi-agency contracts 

or Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs)). OFACs are 

delivery or task order contracts, established by one agency, that authorize 

use by other government agencies to obtain products and services.

(b) For guidance on how to use the GSA federal supply schedules, do not use 

the guidance in this section, but instead see: § 310.50 (GSA Federal 

Supply Schedules).

§ 310.60.20 Ordering Scenarios

(a) Various federal agencies have awarded contracts that may be used by 

other agencies. There are three basic ordering methods for these 

contracts, as follows:

(1) In most cases, the judiciary may place orders directly against the 

other agency’s contract with no other administrative action required.

(2) In a minority of cases, the judiciary must enter into a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) or Interagency Agreement (IA) to be 

granted ordering authority, but orders may be placed directly with 

the vendor once the MOU or IA has been signed.

(3) In a smaller number of instances, the awarding agency reserves all 

ordering authority to itself, and the judiciary must transfer funds to 

that agency via an Interagency Agreement and authorize that 

agency to place the order on its behalf to use the contract.

(b) The judiciary CO must ascertain which of these three ordering methods is 

applicable before issuing any order. For further guidance on interagency 

agreements (IA) and memoranda of understanding (MOU), which are 

subject to the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535), see: Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 550 (Interagency Agreements, MOAs, and MOUs).

(c) When ordering from OFACs under any of the above scenarios, the 

judiciary is required to follow the contract’s ordering procedures, 

competition threshold and the other federal agency contract’s terms and 

conditions. For example, NASA SEWP’s procedures for providing for fair 

opportunity requires that all contractors be given an opportunity to provide 

a quote for all requirements that exceed $10,000.

(d) If authorized to place orders directly with the vendor, the CO may 

determine that judiciary-specific provisions or clauses (see: Guide, 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 32

Vol. 14, Appx. 1C (Matrix of Solicitation Provisions and Clauses), OFAC 

column) are also applicable to the procurement. These may be added, if 

they do not duplicate or conflict with the other agency’s existing terms and 

conditions. The delivery/task order must cite the other agency’s contract 

number under which the order is placed.

§ 310.60.30 Ordering Procedures

The following procedures must be followed when obtaining products and services 

through another federal agency contract:

(a) Determine if another federal agency contract is in the best interests of the 

government by:

(1) ensuring the products and services required are within the scope of 

the other federal agency contract;

(2) analyzing the total cost of obtaining the products or services from 

the other federal agency contract, including applicable service or 

processing fees imposed by the other federal agency;

(3) determining if there are any pricing advantages of using the other 

federal agency contract;

(4) considering intangibles, such as ease of use, time savings;

(5) comparing the expenditure of effort and associated costs with 

placing an order or procuring under other procedures; and

(6) identifying other restrictions, such as length of time during which 

the other federal agency contract will remain in force and effect, or 

in the procedures imposed by the other federal agency as a 

condition to using the contract.

(b) If, after considering the factors described above, the CO decides to obtain 

the products or services through another federal agency contract under 

the Economy Act, the CO must place a written determination in the official 

procurement file; including supporting rationale as to how or why:

(1) use of another federal agency contract under the Economy Act, 

31 U.S.C. § 1535, is in the best interest of the government; and

(2) the products or services cannot be obtained as conveniently or 

economically by procurement directly with a private source.

See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 550 (Interagency Agreements, MOAs, and MOUs) 

and Appx. 5A (Economy Act Determination and Finding), which provides a 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 33

cover page for the additional accompanying supporting factual statement 

required above.

(c) If the other federal agency’s ordering procedures require that orders be 

competed/provide fair opportunity among the multiple contractors (see:

Guide, Vol. 14, § 410.30.65 (Fair Opportunity Process for Delivery Orders 

or Task Orders – OFAC)), the CO must provide a fair opportunity to each 

indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract holder according to 

the other federal agency’s procedures.

(1) If fair opportunity is not provided, it must be supported by a written 

determination that one of the circumstances described in Guide, 

Vol. 14, § 410.30.70 (Exceptions to Fair Opportunity Requirement)

applies to the order, and the requirement is waived based on the 

justification that is prepared according to Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 410.30.73 (Documenting Exceptions to Fair Opportunity 

Requirement). The CO may use either technically 

acceptable/lowest price or best value as the basis for award.

(2) Judiciary organizations, excluding the AO, are not delegated 

authority to conduct best value procurements and must obtain a 

one-time delegation from PMD before issuance of the solicitation 

and before award of the later contract.

§ 310.70 Open Market

Open market purchases are those made directly from commercial sources using 

competitive procedures where applicable, without reference to any other existing federal 

contract. For open market procurement procedures, see: § 315 (Publicizing Open 

Market Procurement Actions) through § 340 (Unsolicited Offers).

§ 310.80 Vendors Offering Services for Public Use

§ 310.80.10 In General

The following procedures apply to vendors who propose to provide a service within a 

courthouse to attorneys and/or other court customers at little or no expense to the 

judiciary. Such vendors usually charge a fee to the user and are, essentially, proposing 

that the court grant them a license or privilege to do so, a privilege not granted to the 

public at large.

§ 310.80.20 Determination Required

The court organization must determine whether the service is necessary to the business 

or mission of the judiciary. Examples of such services might include electronic case 

filing systems or evidence presentation technology in the courtroom. Services 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 34

determined to be necessary to the judiciary’s mission must be paid for with appropriated 

funds. Using other sources of funds for such services could constitute an improper 

augmentation of funds.

§ 310.80.30 Competition

(a) If the service is not necessary to the business of mission of the judiciary 

but, it is a service deemed beneficial to the public, and the service 

requires access to or use of any judiciary property, facilities, records or 

data in a manner not permitted to the public at large, then the opportunity 

to provide the service must be competed. Examples might include a 

conference telephone system offered by a vendor to attorneys for a fee 

that will facilitate attorneys’ participation in court hearings from a remote 

location or high-speed internet access at counsel tables or wireless 

access for attorneys waiting in the courthouse.

(b) The level of competitive procurement procedures to be followed will be 

based on a reasonable estimate of the income the vendor expects to 

derive from payments by the public users over a stated period (such as 

one year) and any cost to the court.

(1) A minimum of three quotes must be solicited if the estimate is more 

than $10,000 for open market services, but not more than $25,000.

(2) If the open market value is estimated at more than $25,000, the 

service being procured must be advertised and fully competed.

(3) If the open market value is estimated at more than $100,000, a 

one-time delegation of authority from PMD is required.

§ 315 Publicizing Open Market Procurement Actions

§ 315.10 Policy

Generally, open market procurements for products or services for the judiciary in excess 

of $25,000 may be made or entered into only after advertising a sufficient time (usually 

a minimum of 10 days) before receipt of offers. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 130.20.15 

(Advertising Requirements). For exceptions to this general rule, see: § 315.10.30 

(Exceptions). There may also be exceptions for certain delegated programs, in 

appropriation law, or in other law applicable to the procurement.

§ 315.10.20 Publicizing Time Requirements

The publicizing information must include a clear and concise description of the products 

or services that is not unnecessarily restrictive of competition and will allow a 

prospective offeror to make an informed business judgment as to whether to request a 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 35

copy of the solicitation. Other elements are the point of contact name and phone 

number, the solicitation number, and due date for offers. Electronic access to the 

solicitation may be provided to potential offerors. Estimated cost data must not normally 

be included. However, estimated levels of effort must be furnished when purchasing 

labor hours.

§ 315.10.30 Exceptions

Exceptions to the advertising requirements are as follows:

(a) when the independent government cost estimate (see: Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 210.30(d) (Requesting Office Responsibilities)) is less than $25,000;

(b) when public exigencies require the immediate delivery of the articles or 

performance of the service;

(Note: A PE written concurrence is required to use this exception.)

(c) when only one source of supply is available, and the CO executes the 

appropriate determination required under § 335 (Justifications and 

Approvals for Limiting Competition); or

(Note: Written concurrence by the purchasing office’s official, as identified 

in Guide, Vol. 14, § 120.20.10(b) (Delegation to Chief Judges and Certain 

Judiciary Officials), is required within their delegation authority. 

Advertising exceptions above the judiciary organization’s delegation 

authority, as well as all exceptions at any dollar level within PMD, require 

the PE’s written concurrence.)

(d) when the services are required to be performed by the contractor in 

person and are:

(1) of a technical and professional nature (see: Guide, Vol. 14, § 520 

(Expert and Consultant Nonpersonal Services Contracts)); or

(2) under judiciary direct supervision and paid for on a time basis (see: 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 510 (Personal Services Contracts)).

(Note: When the exception listed above in subparagraph (d)(1) is for a 

procurement exceeding $25,000 and when the exception in subparagraph 

(d)(2) applies, regardless of dollar value, the CO must submit justification 

to the PE for written approval before solicitation.)

§ 315.20 Methods of Publicizing Procurement Notices

Procurement notices are intended to increase meaningful competition by disseminating 

and explaining the judiciary’s requirements.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 36

(a) COs must advertise each proposed open market procurement that is 

expected to exceed $25,000. For exceptions, see: § 315.10.30 

(Exceptions).

(b) Judiciary organizations have authority to meet the publicizing requirement 

by advertising within the local trade area for open market solicitations over 

$25,000, but less than $100,000. However, national advertisement is 

encouraged whenever feasible. Open market procurements exceeding 

$100,000 must be advertised nationally.

(c) There are several ways to disseminate information concerning the 

judiciary’s needs:

§ 315.20(c) Methods of Publicizing Procurement Notices

Publication Method Description

(1) National Posting 

on SAM.gov

SAM.gov is the official U.S. government website for people who 

make, receive, and manage federal awards. This is a GSA-run 

website available to all government agencies for publicly advertising 

federal solicitations and contract awards.

(2) Local Posting When required or desired to increase competition, local posting of 

solicitations must be prominently displayed in a public area. 

Depending on the location, solicitations may be posted in the public 

area of the purchasing activity, courthouse, or other visible area 

easily accessible by the public.

(3) Local 

Announcements 

and 

Advertisements

Announcements of proposed purchases may be placed in 

newspapers, trade journals, and magazines for publication. Paid 

commercial advertisements may be used when determined by the CO 

to be in the judiciary’s interest.

(4) Electronically Any appropriate public electronic means may also satisfy the local 

posting requirement.

§ 320 Contractor Qualifications

§ 320.10 Responsible Prospective Contractors

§ 320.10.10 Importance of Responsibility

Before award, COs must determine that the prospective contractor is responsible. If a 

contractor who is not responsible, later defaults, provides late delivery, or other 

unsatisfactory performance, the award could eventually cost the judiciary more money 

or a loss of time. To qualify for award, a prospective contractor must affirmatively 

demonstrate its responsibility, including, when necessary, the responsibility of its 

proposed subcontractors.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 37

§ 320.10.20 General Standards

Certain key areas must be considered when determining an offeror’s responsibility. At 

times the same areas may be used as evaluation factors. In such instances, the factors 

must be clearly stated in the solicitation and evaluated according to the evaluation 

provisions of the solicitation. To be determined responsible, a contractor must:

(a) have financial resources adequate to perform the contract;

(b) be able to comply with the delivery or performance schedule, taking into 

consideration all existing commitments (including awards pending);

(c) have a good performance record;

(d) have a sound record of integrity and business ethics;

(e) have a quality control program that complies with solicitation requirements 

or the demonstrated ability to obtain one;

(f) have the necessary organization, experience, accounting, and operational 

controls, technical skills, and production and property controls, or the 

demonstrated ability to obtain them;

(g) have the necessary equipment and facilities, or the demonstrated ability to 

obtain them; and

(h) be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable 

laws and regulations.

§ 320.10.30 Subcontractor Responsibility

Generally, prospective prime contractors are responsible for determining the 

responsibility of their prospective subcontractors. For information on debarred, 

suspended, or ineligible contractors, see: § 320.30 (Debarment, Suspension, and 

Ineligibility). Matters of prospective subcontractor responsibility may affect the 

determination of the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility. A prospective 

contractor may be required to provide written evidence of a proposed subcontractor’s 

responsibility.

§ 320.10.40 Determination of Subcontractor Responsibility

When it is in the judiciary’s interest to do so, the CO may directly determine a 

prospective subcontractor’s responsibility, using the same standards as used to 

determine a prime contractor’s responsibility. This may be particularly appropriate if a 

subcontractor is considered critical to the contractor’s successful performance or if the 

proposed subcontracted effort is a substantial portion of the overall work to be 

performed.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 38

§ 320.20 Determining Responsibility or Non-Responsibility

§ 320.20.10 Determination

The CO must make an affirmative determination of responsibility according to § 320.10 

(Responsible Prospective Contractors) before awarding any contract.

§ 320.20.20 Required Documentation

A written determination is required if a prospective contractor is found to be nonresponsible. All documents and reports related to such a determination, including any 

pre-award survey reports (see: § 320.20.50 (Pre-Award Surveys)) must be included in 

the procurement file.

§ 320.20.30 Obtaining Information

Before making a determination of responsibility, the CO must possess or obtain 

information sufficient to be satisfied that the prospective contractor currently meets 

applicable standards of responsibility.

(a) At a minimum, for open market and sole source awards, the CO must 

check GSA’s SAM.gov exclusions page. See: § 320.30 (Debarment, 

Suspension, and Ineligibility). Note: When ordering against another 

agency’s contract, such as GSA schedule orders, orders under the NASA 

SEWP contracts, etc., the CO may rely on the other agency’s 

determination of responsibility in awarding the contract.

(b) Other sources of responsibility information include:

(1) records and experience data, including verifiable knowledge from 

judiciary personnel in purchasing offices, audit offices, and from 

other agency’s contracting offices;

(2) the prospective contractor, including offer information, 

questionnaire replies, financial data, information on production 

equipment, and personnel information; and

(3) publications, suppliers, subcontractors, and customers of the 

prospective contractor, financial institutions, government agencies, 

and business and trade associations.

§ 320.20.40 Discussion

Communication with a prospective offeror for the purpose of obtaining or clarifying 

information needed to determine responsibility is not “discussion,” as defined in 

§ 330.43 (Discussions with Offerors). Clarification with offerors regarding responsibility 

issues does not require that discussions be held with all those in the competitive range.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 39

§ 320.20.50 Pre-Award Surveys

(a) If available information does not provide an adequate basis for 

determining the responsibility or non-responsibility of a prospective 

contractor, the CO must perform a pre-award survey, by obtaining the 

assistance and participation of specialists as needed. The extent of the 

survey must be commensurate with the dollar value and complexity of the 

purchase, and may include any or all of the following:

(1) data on hand or from other government agencies or commercial 

sources;

(2) examination of financial statements and records; or

(3) on-site inspection of plant and facilities to be used for contract 

performance.

(b) Each participant in the survey must make a written report of findings to the 

CO, which must be retained with the CO’s responsibility determination. 

The CO may require a consolidated survey report if there would otherwise 

be numerous individual reports.

(c) The CO may discuss pre-award survey information with the prospective 

contractor being surveyed.

§ 320.30 Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

§ 320.30.10 In General

Purchasing offices must procure from responsible contractors only. Therefore, 

purchasing offices must not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to 

subcontracts with debarred, suspended, or ineligible contractors or affiliates thereof, 

unless the PE determines in writing that there is a compelling reason for such action in 

the interest of the judiciary.

§ 320.30.15 Exclusions – System for Award Management (SAM)

(a) GSA:

(1) compiles and maintains a list of all parties debarred, suspended, 

proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible by federal agencies 

and the Government Accountability Office (GAO);

(2) includes in the list codes indicating the reason the party is excluded 

and the name and telephone number of the agency official 

responsible for inquiries regarding each excluded party; and
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 40

(3) updates the list daily and publishes it on online.

(b) The Exclusions list on the SAM website contains the following information:

(1) the names and addresses of all contractors debarred, suspended, 

proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible, in alphabetical 

order, with cross-references when more than one name is involved 

in a single action;

(2) name of the federal agency or other authority taking the action;

(3) cause for the action or other statutory or regulatory authority;

(4) effect of the action;

(5) termination date for each listing;

(6) Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number; and

(7) name and telephone number of the debarring agency’s point of 

contact for the action.

§ 320.30.25 Procurement Executive Notification to GSA

Any judiciary recommendation for debarment must be submitted to the PE for action 

according to § 320.50 (Procedural Requirements for Debarment) or § 320.60 (Causes 

for Suspension). After a debarment or suspension determination is made, the PE will 

furnish GSA notice of the determination made by the judiciary for inclusion on 

Exclusions – System for Award Management (SAM). The PE will:

(a) provide GSA with the information required by § 320.30.15 (Exclusions –

System for Award Management (SAM)) after the action becomes effective;

(b) notify GSA after modifying or rescinding an action;

(c) maintain records relating to each debarment, suspension, or proposed 

debarment taken by the judiciary; and

(Note: For record retention requirements, see: Guide, Vol. 10, § 620 

(Records Disposition Schedules).)

(d) respond to inquiries from other federal agencies about contractors 

debarred or suspended by the judiciary.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 41

§ 320.30.30 Effect of Listing

(a) Contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment are 

excluded from receiving contracts, and COs must not solicit offers from, 

award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors, 

unless the PE determines that there is a compelling reason for such 

action.

(b) Contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment are also 

excluded from conducting business with the government as agents or 

representatives of other contractors.

(c) Contractors listed as having been declared ineligible on the basis of 

statutory or other regulatory procedures are excluded from receiving 

contracts and, if applicable, subcontracts, under the conditions and for the 

period provided in the statute or regulation. COs may not solicit offers or 

quotations from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with such 

contractors under those conditions and for that period.

(d) Contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment are 

excluded from acting as individual sureties.

(e) After the opening of offers, the CO must review Exclusions – SAM.gov.

(1) Offers received from any listed contractor in response to a 

solicitation must be rejected unless the PE determines in writing 

that there is a compelling reason to consider the offer.

(2) Offers or quotations received from any listed contractor will not be 

evaluated for award or included in the competitive range, nor will 

discussions be conducted with a listed offeror during a period of 

ineligibility, unless the PE determines, in writing, that there is a 

compelling reason to do so.

(3) If the period of ineligibility expires or is terminated before award, the 

CO may, but is not required to, consider such offers or quotations.

(f) Immediately before award, the CO must again review the Exclusions –

SAM.gov to ensure that no award is made to a listed contractor, unless 

the PE determines, in writing, that there is a compelling reason to do so.

§ 320.30.35 Continuation of Current Contracts

(a) Notwithstanding the debarment, suspension, proposed debarment or 

ineligibility of a contractor, COs may continue contracts or subcontracts in 

existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or 

proposed for debarment, unless the PE directs otherwise. A decision as 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 42

to the type of termination action, if any, to be taken should be made only 

after review by contracting and technical personnel and in consultation 

with the PE, who will coordinate with the AO’s Office of the General 

Counsel (OGC), to ensure the propriety of the proposed action.

(b) If approved by the PE in consultation with OGC, purchasing offices may 

continue to place orders against existing contracts, including indefinitedelivery contracts, unless the contract is terminated.

(c) COs may not renew or otherwise extend the duration of current contracts, 

or consent to subcontracts, with contractors debarred, suspended, or 

proposed for debarment, unless the PE states, in writing, the compelling 

reasons for renewal or extension.

§ 320.30.40 Causes for Debarment

The PE is authorized, after conferring with OGC, to debar a contractor according to the 

procedures in this section for the following causes:

(a) the PE may debar a contractor for a conviction of or civil judgment for:

(1) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with 

obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public contract or 

subcontract;

(2) violation of federal or state antitrust statutes relating to the 

submission of offers;

(3) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or 

destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, or 

receiving stolen property;

(4) commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business 

integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects the 

present responsibility of a government contractor or subcontractor.

(b) The PE may debar a contractor, based on a preponderance of the 

evidence, for violations of a judiciary contract or subcontract so serious as 

to justify debarment action, such as:

(1) willful failure to perform according to the terms of one or more 

contracts; or

(2) a history of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance of 

one or more contracts or subcontracts.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 43

(3) any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects 

the present responsibility of a government contractor or 

subcontractor.

§ 320.30.45 Conditions for Debarment

The existence of any of the causes in § 320.30.40 (Causes for Debarment) does not 

necessarily require that a contractor be debarred. The decision to debar is within the 

discretion of the PE and must be made in the judiciary’s best interest. All mitigating 

factors must be considered in determining the seriousness of the offense, failure, or 

inadequacy of performance, and in deciding whether debarment is warranted.

§ 320.30.50 Removal of Debarment

The existence of any of the first two causes in § 320.30.40(a) (Causes for Debarment)

must be established by criminal conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction. If appeal 

taken from such conviction results in a reversal of the conviction, the debarment must 

be removed on the request of the contractor, unless other causes for debarment exist.

§ 320.30.55 Evidence Required

The existence of any of the causes in § 320.30.40(a) (Causes for Debarment) must be 

established by evidence that the judiciary determines to be clear and convincing.

§ 320.30.60 Individual Accountability

The criminal, fraudulent, or seriously improper conduct of an individual, acting on behalf 

of or associated with a firm, may be imputed to the firm if the action was accomplished 

within the course of the individual’s official duty, or was done by the individual with the 

knowledge, approval, or acquiescence of the firm. Likewise, when a firm is involved in 

criminal, fraudulent, or seriously improper conduct, any person involved in, or who 

acquiesced in, the commission of the conduct may be debarred.

§ 320.40 Period of Debarment

§ 320.40.10 Guidelines

When other agencies provide a specific period of debarment, applicable statutes, 

executive orders, or controlling regulations govern. In other cases, debarment by the 

judiciary must be for a reasonable, definite, stated period of time, commensurate with 

the seriousness of the offense or the failure or inadequacy of performance. Generally, a 

period of debarment may not exceed three years.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 44

§ 320.40.20 Debarment Removal or Reduction of Debarment Period

(a) Except as precluded by statute, debarment may be removed, or the period 

may be reduced by the PE, upon submission of an application by the 

debarred contractor.

(b) The application must be supported by documentary evidence providing 

appropriate grounds for the granting of relief, such as:

• newly discovered material evidence,

• reversal of a conviction,

• bona fide change of ownership or management, or

• the elimination of the causes for which debarment was imposed.

(c) The PE may, as a matter of discretion, deny any application for removal of 

debarment or for reduction of its period.

(d) In any case in which a debarment is removed or the debarment period is 

reduced, the PE must transmit to OGC a notice and statement for the 

record of the reasons for the removal of the debarment or the reduction of 

the period of debarment.

§ 320.50 Procedural Requirements for Debarment

§ 320.50.10 Notice of Proposal to Debar

The PE, after conferring with OGC, must initiate a debarment proceeding by sending to 

the contractor a written notice of proposed debarment. The notice must be served by 

sending it to the last known address of the contractor by certified mail, return receipt 

requested. The notice must state:

(a) that debarment is being considered;

(b) the reasons for the proposed debarment in terms sufficient to put the 

contractor on notice of the conduct or transaction(s) on which it is based;

(c) the cause(s) relied on under § 320.30.40 (Causes for Debarment) for 

proposing debarment;

(d) that, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, the contractor may submit, 

in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and 

argument in opposition to the proposed debarment, including any 

additional specific information that raises a genuine dispute over the 

material facts;

(e) the judiciary’s procedures governing debarment decision making;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 45

(f) the effect of the issuance of the notice of proposed debarment; and

(g) the potential effect of an actual debarment, including the period of 

debarment and the proposed effective date.

§ 320.50.20 Hearing Request

A contractor served with a notice of proposed debarment may request a hearing by 

addressing a request to OGC through the PE.

§ 320.50.30 Concurrent Debarment

When the PE proposes to debar a contractor already debarred by another government 

agency for a term concurrent with such debarment, the debarment proceedings before 

the judiciary may be based entirely on the record of facts obtained from the other 

federal agency or on such facts and additional facts. In such cases the facts obtained 

from the other federal agency must be considered as established, but the party to be 

debarred must have an opportunity to present information to the PE and to explain why 

debarment by the judiciary must not be imposed.

§ 320.60 Causes for Suspension

§ 320.60.10 Contractor Suspension

The PE may, when required by the judiciary’s interest, and after conferring with OGC, 

suspend any contractor on adequate evidence of or indictment for:

(a) commission of fraud or a criminal offense incidental to obtaining, 

attempting to obtain, or performing a judiciary contract or subcontract;

(b) violation of federal or state antitrust statutes relating to the submission of 

offers. Indictment for any of these causes constitutes adequate evidence 

for suspension;

(c) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or 

destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, or receiving 

stolen property; or any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity 

or business honesty that seriously and directly affects present 

responsibility as a contractor or subcontractor; or

(d) other cause(s) of so serious and compelling a nature, affecting the present 

responsibility as a contractor or subcontractor, as may be determined by 

the PE to warrant suspension. A pending hearing for debarment may be 

such a cause.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 46

§ 320.60.20 Concurrent Suspension

A suspension invoked by another government agency may be the basis for the 

imposition of a concurrent suspension by the PE, on behalf of the judiciary.

§ 320.60.30 Notice of Suspension

(a) The PE must send a notice of the suspension to be served on the 

contractor and any specifically named affiliates to be suspended.

(b) The notice must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.

(c) The notice of suspension must be coordinated through OGC before 

issuance.

(d) The notice must state:

(1) that they have been suspended and that the suspension is based 

on an indictment or other adequate evidence that the contractor 

has committed irregularities:

(A) of a serious nature in business dealings with the 

government; or

(B) seriously reflecting on the propriety of further judiciary 

dealings with the contractor. Any such irregularities must be 

described in terms sufficient to place the contractor on notice 

without disclosing the judiciary’s evidence;

(2) that the suspension is for a temporary period pending the 

completion of an investigation and such legal proceedings as may 

ensue;

(3) the cause(s) relied on under § 320.60.10 (Contractor Suspension)

for imposing suspension;

(4) that, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, the contractor may 

submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, 

information and argument in opposition to the suspension, including 

any additional specific information that raises a genuine dispute 

over the material facts; and

(5) that additional proceedings to determine disputed material facts will 

be conducted unless:

(A) the action is based on an indictment; or
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 47

(B) a determination is made that the substantial interests of the 

judiciary in pending or contemplated legal proceedings 

based on the same facts as the suspension would be 

prejudiced.

§ 320.60.40 Period of Suspension

(a) Suspension must be for a temporary period pending the completion of 

investigation and any ensuing legal proceedings, unless sooner 

terminated by the PE or as provided in this section.

(b) If legal proceedings are not initiated within 12 months after the date of the 

suspension notice, the suspension will be terminated, unless the PE 

requests its extension.

(c) Suspension Extension

A suspension, while in effect, may be extended for an additional period of 

six months on written determination of the reasons and necessity for the 

extension.

(1) Notice of any extension of suspension must be served on the 

contractor in the manner described in § 320.60.30 (Notice of 

Suspension).

(2) A suspension plus its extensions may not exceed, in the aggregate, 

18 months, unless legal proceedings have been initiated within that 

period. In that case, successive additional periods of suspension 

may be imposed until the proceeding in question has been 

completed.

(3) The termination of a suspension, however, may not prejudice a 

debarment proceeding that was pending or that may be brought for 

the same reasons that led to the suspension.

§ 325 Small Purchase Procedures

§ 325.10 Applicability

The small purchase procedures are for use in making open market fixed-price 

purchases up to $100,000, as well as Not-To-Exceed purchase orders under $100,000 

for services such as equipment repairs, which are customarily priced on the basis of 

parts plus labor. This dollar limitation is referred to as the judiciary’s small purchase 

threshold.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 48

Note: This section does not apply to GSA FSS orders (see: § 310.50 (GSA Federal 

Supply Schedules)) or orders from other federal agency contracts (see: § 310.60 

(Other Federal Agency Contracts)).

§ 325.10.10 Limitations

A procurement estimated to total more than the judiciary’s small purchase threshold 

may not be split into two or more purchases to use small purchase procedures. Nor 

may a known requirement for goods or services be split, parceled, divided, or 

purchased over a period of time, solely to avoid the dollar limitations for small purchase 

procedures.

§ 325.15 Open Market Competition

§ 325.15.10 Competition Threshold

In the judiciary, open market purchases for $10,000 ($25,000 for training products and 

services) or less may be made without obtaining competitive quotations, provided that 

the CO determines the price to be reasonable.

§ 325.15.20 Verifying Price Reasonableness

The administrative cost of verifying the reasonableness of the price for purchases under 

the $10,000 ($25,000 for training products and services) competition threshold may 

more than offset potential savings from detecting instances of overpricing. Therefore, 

action to verify price reasonableness need only be taken if:

(a) the CO suspects or has information to indicate that the price may not be 

reasonable, such as comparison to the previous price paid or personal 

knowledge of the product or service involved; or

(b) purchasing a product or service for which no comparable pricing 

information is readily available, such as a product or service that is not the 

same as, or is not similar to, other products or services that have been 

recently purchased on a competitive basis.

§ 325.15.30 Vendor Rotation

Where practicable, noncompetitive purchases under the $10,000 ($25,000 for training 

products and services) competition threshold must be distributed and rotated equitably 

among qualified suppliers. A quotation must be obtained from other than the previous 

supplier before placing a repeat order.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 49

§ 325.20 Competitive Small Purchase Procedures

§ 325.20.10 Competition Guidelines

(a) Purchases must be made on the basis of adequate competition whenever 

feasible. Adequate competition means the solicitation of and participation 

by a sufficient number of capable sources to ensure that the required 

quality and quantity of products and services is obtained when needed, 

and that the price is fair and reasonable.

(1) COs must make a determination that adequate competition has 

been obtained and posting requirements have been met in any 

instance in which it is required. In making that determination, COs 

must act with reasoned discretion, taking into account the business 

requirements of the particular procurement, as well as the 

judiciary’s general interest in identifying new suppliers and 

providing opportunities for its supplier base.

(2) Competition must be sought to the extent practicable for purchases 

estimated to be more than the judiciary’s open market competition 

threshold (see: § 325.15.10 (Competition Threshold)), but less 

than the judiciary’s advertising threshold, $25,000. See also: 

§ 335 (Justifications and Approvals for Limiting Competition).

(b) For open market purchases in this range, offers or quotations must be 

solicited from a sufficient number of qualified sources (normally at least 

three) to ensure that the price is fair and reasonable. Notwithstanding the 

minimum number of qualified sources that must be solicited to ensure 

adequate competition, the CO is encouraged to solicit as many potential 

sources as time will permit, commensurate with the scope of the 

procurement.

(c) For any open market purchases over $25,000, the requirement must be 

advertised. See: § 315.20 (Methods for Publicizing Procurement 

Notices).

(d) For any open market purchases over the judiciary’s small purchase 

threshold (see: § 325.10 (Applicability)), use the standard competitive 

contracting procedures for formal contracts. See: § 330 (Standard 

Competitive Contracting Procedures).

§ 325.20.20 Soliciting Competitive Quotes

When determining how many quotations to solicit, the CO may consider the following 

factors:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 50

(a) the nature of the product or service to be purchased and whether it is 

highly competitive and readily available in several makes or brands or if 

relatively few suppliers provide the product or service;

(b) information obtained in making recent purchases of the same or similar 

item;

(c) the urgency of the proposed purchase; and

(d) past experience concerning specific vendors’ prices.

§ 325.30 Soliciting Under Small Purchase Procedure

§ 325.30.10 In General

(a) For procurements less than the judiciary’s small purchase threshold (see: 

§ 325.10 (Applicability)), soliciting quotations under small purchase 

procedures may be done either in writing or orally.

(b) Whether the solicitation is oral or written, the CO must request the 

vendor’s UEI number (or Tax ID number).

(c) When determining responsibility (see: § 320.20 (Determining 

Responsibility or Non-Responsibility)) and checking SAM (see: § 320.30 

(Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility)), the UEI number will assist in 

obtaining information about the vendor.

§ 325.30.20 Written Solicitations

(a) Under small purchase procedures, a written solicitation is referred to as a 

Request for Quotation (RFQ). Written solicitations provide a clearer 

understanding of the requirement and must be used in the following 

circumstances:

(1) when a large number of line items is included in a single proposed 

procurement;

(2) when obtaining oral quotations is not considered economical or 

practical;

(3) when a SCLS determination is applicable;

(4) when extensive specifications are involved; or

(5) when purchasing services, unless the services are generally predefined and would normally be priced in a catalog.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 51

(b) In addition to describing the judiciary requirement, a written RFQ must 

include Clause 3-3, Terms and Conditions – Small Purchases and 

Provision 3-5, Taxpayer Identification and Other Offeror Information. This 

provision must be included in full text to enable the vendor to provide the 

information requested. For additional clauses and provisions related to 

solicitations for services and when to include them, see: § 332.50 

(Required Clauses and Provisions).

§ 325.30.25 Oral Solicitations

An oral solicitation may be used when a written solicitation would be impracticable, as 

when processing a written solicitation would cause a delay detrimental to the judiciary. 

Records of oral solicitations (e.g., vendors contacted and prices offered) must be in the 

purchasing file. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 710.10 (Procurement Files 

(Purchase/Delivery/Task Order or Contract Files)).

§ 325.30.30 Amending Written Solicitations

An amendment to an RFQ must be issued on Form SF-30 (Amendment of 

Solicitation/Modification of Contract). For issuing amendments to solicitations, see: 

§ 330.16 (Amendment of Solicitations).

§ 325.35 Basis for Award

§ 325.35.10 Policy

(a) The basis for award must be determined before issuance of the solicitation 

and must not change once quotes have been received.

(b) Small purchases may be awarded on the basis of:

(1) technically acceptable/lowest price, or

(2) best value, which involves an evaluation and comparison of cost or 

price and other factors.

(c) For small purchases, technically acceptable/lowest price is the preferred 

basis for award. See: § 325.35.20 (Technically Acceptable/Lowest 

Price). If appropriate, best value may be used, but the circumstances 

requiring its use must be documented and maintained in the procurement 

file. See: § 325.35.30 (Best Value).

§ 325.35.20 Technically Acceptable/Lowest Price

Quotes are evaluated based on price. Awards are made to the lowest priced quotation 

or the quote that meets the judiciary’s stated minimum technical requirements and is 

made by a responsible quoter. This method is normally used for standard commercial 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 52

off-the-shelf products or services of acceptable quality for which there is adequate 

competition. See also: Guide, Vol. 14, § 210.70.30(a) (Source Selection Processes).

§ 325.35.30 Best Value

(a) Small purchase open market awards may be made based on best value to 

the responsible quoter who submits the most advantageous quotation 

taking into account price and other evaluation factors specifically stated in 

the solicitation.

(b) Small purchases do not generally warrant evaluation based on best value; 

technically acceptable/lowest price is generally used for small purchases. 

See: § 325.35.20 (Technically Acceptable/Lowest Price). Use of best 

value as an evaluation method is usually highly complex and will require 

lengthy or detailed submissions by the quoters. See also: § 330.40.30 

(Best Value Awards) and § 330.40.40 (Selection Documentation).

Note: Judiciary organizations, excluding the AO, are not delegated 

authority to conduct best value procurements and must obtain a one-time 

delegation from PMD before issuance of the solicitation and before award 

of the later contract.

§ 325.40 Receipt and Evaluation of Quotations

§ 325.40.10 Recording Quotes

Responses to written and oral quotations must be clearly recorded in a format 

permitting ready comparison of prices and other details. The CO must place this record 

in the procurement file.

§ 325.40.20 Late Quotations

Late quotations in response to written or oral RFQ solicitations may be considered when 

an award has not yet been made, provided that the CO determines that doing so is in 

the judiciary’s best interest. This determination must be documented in the 

procurement file.

§ 325.40.30 Evaluation

Evaluation must be made on the basis of price, or price and other factors as provided in 

the RFQ. Regardless of the basis of award (best value or lowest price/technically 

acceptable), the CO must make a price reasonableness determination and document it 

in the procurement file.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 53

§ 325.43 Ordering Methods Under Small Purchase Procedures

Ordering methods under small purchase procedures include use of the purchase card, 

award of purchase order, and award of orders under BPAs or existing contract (e.g., 

IDIQ or GWAC).

§ 325.45 Purchase Order

A purchase order is used to place open market orders when quotations have been 

obtained in response to an oral or written RFQ. Because a quotation is not a legal offer 

subject to acceptance by the judiciary, a purchase order issued in response to a 

quotation does not become a binding contract until the contractor either signifies 

acceptance by:

(a) commencing delivery or performance of the work; or

(b) accepts the purchase order in writing.

§ 325.45.10 Contents of a Purchase Order

The following items must be included on each purchase order:

(a) purchase order number and date;

(b) technical point of contact;

(c) vendor’s name, address, UEI or Tax ID Number (TIN);

(d) description of product(s)/service(s) — an SOW for services, when 

required, or a brief, complete description of each item (when ordering by 

model number, features and options, such as color, finish, and electrical 

characteristics, if available, must be specified);

(e) quantity/unit of measure and extended prices/total;

(f) billing address;

(g) payment provisions;

(h) contract number if order is placed against an existing contract (for FSS, 

GWAC, Judiciary-Wide, etc., see: § 310.50 (GSA Federal Supply 

Schedules) or § 310.60 (Other Federal Agency Contracts));

(i) delivery requirements:

• delivery time and/or period of performance,

• quantity,
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 54

• form,

• F.O.B. delivery point (i.e., origin or destination), and

• inspection and acceptance provisions;

(j) appropriation(s) data; and

(k) CO’s signature.

§ 325.45.15 Purchase Order Terms and Conditions 

(a) To protect the judiciary’s rights when acquiring products and/or services, it 

is important that basic terms and conditions be made a part of any 

purchase order issued.

(b) COs must include Clause 3-3, Terms and Conditions – Small Purchases, 

in open market RFQs and purchase orders. It lists the basic terms and 

conditions required on any open market purchase order estimated to be 

less than the judiciary’s small purchase threshold. The CO must also 

consult the clause matrix and include any other clauses that may be 

applicable to the specific purchase order.

§ 325.45.20 Modification of Purchase Orders

Modification of Purchase Orders must be processed on an SF-30 (Amendment of 

Solicitation/Modification of Contract) (or equivalent form), must identify the order it 

modifies, and must contain an appropriate modification number. If written acceptance is 

determined to be necessary to ensure the contractor’s compliance, the CO must obtain 

a contractor’s written acceptance of a purchase order modification. See also: Guide, 

Vol. 14, § 745 (Contract Modifications).

§ 325.45.25 Use of Unpriced Purchase Orders 

Unpriced purchase orders, in which the end price is not established at the time the 

purchase order is issued, may be used only when:

(a) it is impractical to obtain firm pricing in advance of issuing the purchase 

order;

(b) the purchase is for:

(1) repairs to equipment requiring disassembly to determine the nature 

and extent of repairs; or

(2) products or services for which there is a repetitive need within a 

single fiscal year and for which prices are known to be competitive 

(e.g., overnight delivery services, or office supplies), and a not-toexceed amount is stated on the purchase order.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 55

(c) Unpriced purchase orders must be thoroughly documented to support that 

the obligated/not-to-exceed amount is reasonable and monitored 

periodically to ensure that excess funds are deobligated in a timely 

manner. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 220.50.20(e) (Contract Funding 

Requirements).

§ 325.45.30 Termination and Cancellation of Purchase Orders 

If an order needs to be ended before its completion then either a termination or 

cancellation needs to be processed, as described below.

(a) Termination. If a purchase order has been accepted in writing by the 

contractor or the contractor has commenced performance, then a 

termination must be processed. The CO must process the termination 

according to Guide, Vol. 14, § 755 (Contract Termination).

(b) Cancellation. If a purchase order has not been accepted in writing by the 

contractor or the contractor has not commenced performance, then a 

cancellation must be processed. The CO may cancel by notifying the 

contractor in writing that the purchase order is being canceled and 

requesting the contractor’s written acceptance of the cancellation.

(1) Acceptance of Cancellation. If the contractor accepts the 

cancellation and does not claim that costs were incurred as a result 

of beginning performance under the purchase order, the purchase 

order may be canceled. The CO must process a modification to 

cancel the purchase order and deobligate any funds.

(2) Rejection of Cancellation. If the contractor does not accept the 

cancellation or claims that costs were incurred as a result of 

beginning performance under the purchase order, the CO must 

treat the action as a termination according to Clause 3-3, 

Provisions, Clauses, Terms and Conditions – Small Purchases and 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 755 (Contract Termination).

§ 325.50 Blanket Purchase Agreement

(a) A BPA is an ordering agreement, not a contract. A BPA does not 

constitute a legally binding contract and may be established without an 

obligation of funds. Therefore, there is never an obligation of funds 

recorded based on the award of a BPA. Funds must be obligated at the 

time an order is placed against a BPA, unless the order is subject to the 

availability of funds and properly supported by Clause 7-115, Availability of 

Funds.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 56

(b) BPAs are written agreements negotiated between a purchasing office and 

a contractor that contain agreed upon terms and conditions that will apply

if and when an order is placed against the BPA for products or services.

(c) BPAs permit individuals that are designated in writing by name or title in 

the BPA, to place orders by telephone, over-the-counter, by email, or in 

writing. Regardless of how the order is placed, an obligation of funds 

must be recorded in the financial system at the time the order is placed.

§ 325.50.10 Limitations

(a) Mandatory source(s) (see: § 310 (Procurement Sources)),must be 

considered before establishing a BPA for products or services. If one of 

the mandatory sources offers the products of services that are required, 

the BPA must be established with the mandatory source(s).

(b) A BPA may not state or imply any obligation or agreement by the judiciary 

to place future orders.

(c) A BPA may be changed only by modifying the BPA itself and not by 

individual orders issued under it. Modifying a BPA does not retroactively 

affect orders previously issued under it.

(d) A BPA extending for more than one year must be reviewed annually to 

determine:

(1) whether there is a continuing need for the products or services 

covered by the agreement, 

(2) that the products or services being purchased under the agreement 

still represent the best price, and

(3) whether any revisions to the agreement are necessary.

§ 325.50.15 Use of BPAs

BPAs may be established with suppliers when numerous individual purchases will likely 

be made in a given period. It would be advantageous to establish BPAs with 

dependable suppliers that are consistently lower in price than other suppliers and when 

numerous small purchases are expected to be made from them. BPAs may be 

established with GSA FSS schedule holders (see: § 310.50.53 (Blanket Purchase 

Agreements Under GSA Schedules)) or on the open market (see: § 325.50.30 (Open 

Market Single Award BPA) and § 325.50.35 (Open Market Multiple Award BPA)). BPAs 

are used when:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 57

(a) a wide variety of items in a broad class of products or services may be 

available from suppliers, but quantities and delivery requirements are not 

known in advance and may vary considerably;

(b) there is a desire to reduce preparation of numerous written orders and 

processing of invoices through issuance of a blanket delivery order since 

billing under a blanket delivery order is done collectively over an 

established time period (usually monthly) (see: Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 410.30.60(d) (Blanket Delivery Orders)); or

(c) there is a need to provide commercial sources of supply for ordering by 

offices that do not have other purchasing authority.

§ 325.50.20 BPA Sources 

There are two sources for BPAs: open market and GSA. (If competing, see: 

§ 325.20.10 (Competition Guidelines). The competition must be conducted among the 

same sources: either all GSA or all open market.)

(a) An open market BPA is established with commercial vendors using 

competitive procedures, where applicable, without reference to any other 

existing federal contract.

(b) A GSA FSS BPA is a BPA established under any GSA federal supply 

schedule contract. GSA BPAs must follow the policies detailed in 

§ 310.50.53 (Blanket Purchase Agreements Under GSA Schedules).

§ 325.50.25 BPA Types

There are two types of BPAs: priced and unpriced.

(a) A priced BPA has a price list, approved in writing by the CO. The price list 

establishes prices for the order of products or services during the term of 

the BPA.

(1) A priced BPA is appropriate when prices are available for 

commercial products, such as office supplies, or for a flat-rate 

repair service.

(2) Pricing changes may be made infrequently with the CO’s approval 

of a new price list. The CO will determine and document that the 

new pricing is still fair and reasonable and competitive in the 

current market.

(b) An unpriced BPA does not contain a price list but may contain labor hour 

rates. An unpriced BPA is appropriate when the order will require an 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 58

SOW or when prices cannot otherwise be established before establishing 

the BPA.

(1) Prices are competed and established when an individual order is 

placed against the BPA.

(2) Ordinarily, the CO may not authorize the contractor to begin work 

on an order under a BPA until prices have been established. 

However, if urgency precludes advance pricing and the order 

establishes a ceiling price limiting the judiciary’s obligation, the CO 

may place an unpriced order after getting a one-time delegation of 

authority from PMD. Pricing must be established as soon as 

possible after issuance of an unpriced order.

§ 325.50.30 Open Market Single Award BPA

(a) A single award BPA is a BPA with only one vendor. While the Judiciary’s 

preference is to establish multiple award BPAs, rather than single award 

BPAs, the CO has the discretion to determine which is needed, using the 

following factors:

(1) the scope and complexity of the requirement(s);

(2) the technical qualifications of the contractor(s);

(3) the administrative costs of BPAs;

(4) the need to periodically compare multiple technical approaches or 

prices; and

(5) the need to have backup sources for the products and/or services, 

since BPA holders are not required to accept all orders.

(b) The CO must document the file describing the decision for a single award 

BPA before the solicitation is issued and the BPA is established.

(c) There are three scenarios that could yield a single award BPA.

(1) Need based. A CO has assessed the needs of the court and made 

a determination that, based on the level of need for the products or 

services, only one source is needed for the BPA. The CO must 

document the file describing the anticipated need and the CO’s 

determination to have a single award BPA.

(2) Only one quote received. If the CO solicits a sufficient number of 

qualified contractors (normally at least three) or advertises if the 

estimated value exceeds $25,000 and only receives one quote, the 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 59

CO has fulfilled the competition requirement. The CO should 

document the file showing the attempt to solicit three or more 

sources.

(3) Only one source. If the contracting officer decides not to compete 

the requirement for the BPA or that only one source is available to 

provide the goods and services and therefore a sole source BPA is 

required, an approved written justification for limiting competition is 

required. See: § 335.60.30 (Justification for Limiting Open Market 

Competition).

(d) Orders against a single award BPA need not be competed or advertised. 

Single award BPAs must be priced.

§ 325.50.35 Open Market Multiple Award BPA

A Multiple Award BPA involves awarding BPAs for the same class of products or 

services to more than one vendor.

(a) Orders against a multiple award BPA with an estimated price not expected 

to exceed the judiciary’s competition threshold need not be competed or 

advertised. Authorized users may place the order directly under any of 

the established BPAs when the need for the product or service arises. 

The CO may exercise broad discretion in developing appropriate order 

placement procedures. However, the CO must:

(1) keep vendor submission requirements to a minimum and use 

streamlined procedures whenever possible;

(2) develop ordering procedures that will provide each awardee an 

opportunity to be considered for orders that exceed the judiciary’s 

competition threshold;

(3) include the ordering procedures in the solicitation and the BPA; the 

BPA solicitation must specify that quote requests may be by oral or 

written solicitation, and is limited to firms holding BPAs for the same 

products or services;

(4) not use any method (such as allocation or designation of any 

preferred awardee) that would not result in fair consideration being 

given to all awardees before placing each order;

(5) tailor the procedures to each acquisition; and

(6) consider price or cost under each order as one of the factors in the 

selection decision.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 60

(b) Orders against multiple award BPAs with an estimated price exceeding 

the judiciary’s competition threshold need not be advertised, but the CO 

must compete each call among all BPA holders unless supported by a 

written determination that:

• one of the circumstances described in § 335 (Justifications and 

Approvals for Limiting Competition) applies to the order, and

• the requirement is waived on the basis of a justification prepared 

according to § 335.60.30 (Justification for Limiting Open Market 

Competition).

(c) When a call is competed among the BPA holders, the CO must, at a 

minimum:

(1) provide a fair notice of the intent to make a purchase, including a 

clear description of the products to be delivered or the services to 

be performed and the basis on which the selection will be made, to 

all contractors offering the required supplies or services under the 

multiple award contract; and

(2) afford all contractors responding to the notice an opportunity to 

submit a quote and have that quote fairly considered.

§ 325.50.40 Ordering Under BPAs

(a) A CO or an authorized ordering officer that has been identified in the BPA 

may issue orders for products and services covered by that agreement. 

Orders issued under the BPA are subject to the terms and conditions of 

the associated BPA. The orders should be documented in the BPA file.

(b) When frequent orders are anticipated against a priced single award BPA, 

the CO may utilize a blanket delivery order (BDO), obligating funds and 

tracking the open balance according to Guide, Vol. 14, § 220.50.20(c) 

(Contract Funding Requirements). BDOs may not cross fiscal years; they 

may only be used to pay for orders placed within a single fiscal year.

§ 325.50.50 Content of BPA Orders

A BPA Order must include the same information that is included in a purchase order, 

(see: § 325.45.10 (Contents of a Purchase Order)), as well as the following:

(a) Pricing for the products or services, or a description of the method for 

determining prices to be paid to the vendor for the products or services.

(b) A list of the ordering officers authorized to issue orders under the 

agreement.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 61

(c) The point at which each order becomes a binding contract (e.g., issuance 

of the order, acceptance of the order in a specified manner, or failure to 

reject the order within a specified number of days).

(d) The appropriate contract type clauses for the orders to be placed (i.e., 

fixed-price, labor-hour, or time-and-materials). For clauses prescribed by 

dollar amount, the aggregate value of orders expected to be placed under 

the agreement over its full life must be estimated.

§ 325.50.55 Review of BPAs

(a) The BPA’s CO must conduct monthly random reviews of the orders placed 

by authorized ordering officers to determine that the orders were placed 

appropriately according the agreement and within applicable procurement 

guidance.

(b) The BPA’s CO must review BPA files at least annually to ensure that 

authorized procedures are being followed, pricing is still competitive, and 

that continued use is justified.

§ 325.55 Administration of Small Purchases

(a) Purchases must be administered according to the terms and conditions of 

the order or agreement.

(b) After the order is placed, the requesting office awaits delivery or 

performance, inspects the products or services, and accepts or rejects the 

delivery. If there is a problem in the delivery or performance, the 

requesting office informs the CO. The CO determines the best course of 

action, depending on the circumstances and the terms and conditions of 

the order.

(c) Modifications are made as necessary to clarify, correct, terminate, cancel 

the order, or make appropriation data changes or corrections. 

Modifications can only be issued by a CO. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 745 

(Contract Modifications).

(d) The last administration action is to close out the small purchases, which 

includes BPAs, purchase orders, and orders against existing contracts 

that do not exceed the judiciary’s small purchase threshold. See: Guide, 

Vol. 14, § 760 (Contract Closeout).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 62

§ 330 Standard Competitive Contracting Procedures

§ 330.10 Applicability

This section describes procedures for the competitive procurement of products and 

services whose cost is estimated to exceed the small purchase threshold stated in 

§ 325.10 (Applicability). These procedures do not apply to orders or contracts placed 

under GSA FSS (see: § 310.50 (GSA Federal Supply Schedules)) or orders against 

other federal agency contracts (see: § 310.60 (Other Federal Agency Contracts)).

§ 330.10.10 Format and Contents of Contract

A contract is used when offers have been obtained in response to a written Request for 

Proposal (RFP) and follows the uniform contract format (UCF). See: Guide, Vol. 14, 

Appx. 1A (Uniform Contract Format). Because an offer is subject to acceptance by the 

judiciary, a contract issued based on a proposal in response to an RFP is signed by 

both the contractor and the CO. The contractor’s UEI or Tax ID number (TIN) is

included in the name and address block of the award document.

(a) Face Page of a Contract

The following items must be included on the face page of each contract:

(1) date and contract number;

(2) contractor’s signature; and

(3) CO’s signature.

(b) Contract Terms and Conditions

To protect the judiciary’s rights when acquiring products and/or services, it 

is important that basic terms and conditions be made a part of any 

contract.

§ 330.10.20 Soliciting under Standard Competitive Contracting Procedures

(a) Preparation of Solicitations

Solicitations must be prepared according to Guide, Vol. 14, Appx. 1A 

(Uniform Contract Format).

(b) Recommended Time Frames for Offers

Consistent with specific purchase requirements, all solicitations must allow 

sufficient time for offerors to prepare and submit offers. The following 

table outlines the recommended time frames.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 63

§ 330.10.20(b) Recommended Time Frames for Offers

Type of Product and Service Offer Time 

(1) Nonstandard, 

Noncommercial Products 

and Services

The CO must allow at least thirty days for submission of 

proposals, unless there is written approved justification 

from the PLO for requiring an earlier submission.

(2) Standard Commercial 

Products and Services 

The CO will make a decision as to the sufficient length of 

solicitation time by taking into consideration the availability 

of competition, complexity of the purchase, delivery time 

required, etc. This length of time is usually a small number 

of days.

(c) Method of Solicitation

(1) The CO will determine the method by which the solicitation is 

delivered to potential offerors. This determination will consider 

such choices as:

• regular US Postal Service mail,

• electronic mail, or

• posting on a website.

(2) Choices are dependent on:

• the size of the solicitation package,

• the number of vendors being solicited,

• the time required for the responses to be returned, and/or

• other relevant considerations.

(d) Posting and Synopsis

The CO must comply with the publicizing method requirements in 

§ 315.20 (Methods of Publicizing Procurement Notices).

(e) Availability of Solicitations

The purchasing office must maintain a reasonable number of copies of 

solicitations to be provided to prospective offerors upon request. If the 

solicitation is advertised as being available on an electronic site, the 

solicitation must remain available to prospective offerors until the posted 

closing time for receipt of proposals.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 64

§ 330.10.30 Provisions and Clauses

The CO will include the following clauses and provisions in all solicitations exceeding 

the judiciary’s small purchase threshold (see: § 325.10 (Applicability)) unless the 

prescription indicates otherwise.

(a) Provision 3-5, Taxpayer Identification and Other Offeror Information.

(b) Provision 3-15, Place of Performance.

(c) Provision 3-20, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Proposed 

Debarment, and Other Responsibility Matters. The offeror will 

appropriately fill in the provision’s blank spaces.

(d) Clause 3-25, Protecting the Judiciary’s Interests when Subcontracting with 

Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment.

(e) Provision 3-30, Certificate of Independent Price Determination is included 

in all solicitations for firm-fixed price contracts or fixed-price with economic 

price adjustment, which are expected to exceed the judiciary’s small 

purchase threshold. See: § 325.10 (Applicability). The offeror will 

appropriately fill in the provision’s blank spaces.

(f) Clause 3-35, Covenant Against Contingent Fees.

(g) Clause 3-40, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Judiciary.

(h) Clause 3-45, Anti-Kickback Procedures.

(i) Clause 3-50, Cancellation, Rescission, and Recovery of Funds for Illegal 

or Improper Activity.

(j) Clause 3-55, Price or Fee Adjustment for Illegal or Improper Activity.

(k) Provision 3-70, Determination of Responsibility.

(l) Clause 7-20, Security Requirements, is included whenever unescorted 

access to judiciary buildings or access to the judiciary IT network is 

required. For further information on the types of background checks, 

procedures for obtaining background checks, and appropriate forms to 

use, see: Guide, Vol. 12, § 570 (Background Checks and Investigations).

(m) Provision 3-85, Explanation to Prospective Offerors.

(n) Provision 3-95, Preparation of Offers.

(o) Provision 3-100, Instructions to Offerors is included in all solicitations.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 65

(1) Alternate I is included if the judiciary intends to make award after 

discussions with offerors within the competitive range.

(2) Alternate II is included if the judiciary would be willing to accept 

alternate offers.

(3) Alternate III is included if the judiciary would be willing to consider 

offers which do not include all items solicited and make multiple 

awards.

(p) Clause 3-105, Audit and Records.

(q) Provision 3-115, Facsimile Offers is included in solicitations if facsimile 

offers are authorized.

(r) Clause 3-120, Order of Precedence.

(s) Provision 3-130, Authorized Negotiators. The offeror will appropriately fill 

in the provision’s blank spaces.

(t) Provision 3-135, Single or Multiple Awards is included in solicitations for 

indefinite-quantity contracts that may result in multiple contract awards.

(u) Clause 3-140, Notice to the Judiciary of Labor Disputes is included in 

solicitations and contracts that involve programs or requirements for which 

it is necessary that contractors be required to notify the judiciary of actual 

or potential labor disputes that are delaying or threaten to delay timely 

performance.

(v) Clause 3-145, Payment for Overtime Premiums is included in solicitations 

and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. The 

CO will appropriately fill in the clause’s blank spaces.

(w) Clause 3-150, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act – Overtime 

Compensation is included when the resulting contract may involve the 

employment of laborers or mechanics. See: Glossary.

(x) Clause 3-155, Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act is included in solicitations 

and contracts if the procurement is for the manufacturing or furnishing of 

products and expected to be in excess of $15,000.

(y) For applicable SCLS provisions and clauses, see: § 332.50 (Required 

Clauses and Provisions).

(z) Provision 3-185, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

is included in solicitations for service contracts when the contract amount 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 66

is expected to exceed $500,000 and the service to be provided will require 

meaningful numbers of professional employees.

(aa) Clause 3-205, Protest After Award is included in all solicitations and 

contracts.

(bb) Provision 3-210, Protests is included in all solicitations exceeding the 

judiciary’s small purchase threshold. See: § 325.10 (Applicability). The 

CO will appropriately fill in the provision’s blank spaces.

(cc) Clause 5-30, Authorization and Consent is included in all solicitations and 

contracts. Use the clause with Alternate I if the solicitation or contract is 

for communication services with a common carrier and the services are 

unregulated and not priced by a tariff schedule set by a regulatory body.

(dd) Court organizations that can make payment by electronic funds transfer 

(EFT) will incorporate the following clauses as indicated:

(1) Clause 3-300, Registration in the System for Award Management 

(SAM) is included in solicitations and contracts except when:

(A) the contract is awarded under circumstances of urgent and 

compelling need;

(B) the contractor is a foreign vendor; or

(C) awards under $10,000 ($25,000 for training products and 

services) that do not use EFT for payment.

(2) Clause 3-305, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer – System for 

Award Management (SAM) Registration is included in solicitations 

and contracts that include Clause 3-300.

(3) Clause 3-310, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer – Other Than 

System for Award Management (SAM) Registration is included in 

contracts when a critical sole source provider of goods or services 

refuses to register in SAM, but has provided Electronic Funds 

Transfer information for payment directly to the judiciary.

(4) Provision 3-315, Submission of Electronic Funds Transfer 

Information with Offer is included in solicitations when urgent and 

compelling circumstances require award to be made without regard 

to whether or not the awardee is registered in SAM. The resulting 

contract must include Clause 3-305, Payment by Electronic Funds 

Transfer – System for Award Management (SAM) Registration if 

the awardee is registered in SAM, or Clause 3-310, Payment by 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 67

Electronic Funds Transfer – Other Than System for Award 

Management (SAM) Registration if the awardee is not.

See also: Guide, Vol. 14, § 170.70 (Clause); § 715.55 

(Clauses/Provisions); and § 755.20.60 (Clauses).

§ 330.13 Pre-Offer Conference

§ 330.13.10 In General

Whenever circumstances warrant, such as when a solicitation has complicated 

specifications or requirements, a pre-offer conference may be held to brief prospective 

offerors and respond to questions.

§ 330.13.20 Notification Requirements

If the need for a pre-offer conference is foreseen, notice of the conference must be 

given in the solicitation. Otherwise, all offerors that received the solicitation must be 

given written notice of the time, place, nature, and scope of the conference. If time 

allows, prospective offerors must be instructed to submit written questions in advance, 

so that prepared answers can be distributed at the conference.

§ 330.13.30 Conducting the Conference

The CO or a designated representative must conduct the conference, with the 

assistance and participation of program officials, technical personnel or others as 

appropriate.

§ 330.13.40 Records

A record of the conference must be furnished to all prospective offerors that received 

the solicitation. Conferees must be informed that statements and explanations at the 

conference do not change any terms, specifications, or other requirements of the 

solicitation. These may only be changed if the CO issues a written amendment.

§ 330.16 Amendment of Solicitations

§ 330.16.10 In General

If it becomes necessary to make changes in a solicitation, a solicitation amendment 

must be issued. The procurement file must be documented to show the reason for any 

amendment. An amendment may make the following types of changes:

• quantity,

• specifications,

• delivery schedule, or

• other corrections as needed.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 68

§ 330.16.20 Time Frame

An amendment must be issued in sufficient time to permit offerors to consider it in 

submitting or modifying their offers. COs issuing amendments near the due date for 

submission of proposals should consider whether an extension of the due date is 

necessary, based on the extent of the changes made by the amendment.

§ 330.16.30 Notification

When the CO believes it is necessary to give notification of a change by telephone or 

email, a written amendment confirming the change must be processed and distributed 

to the offerors.

§ 330.16.40 Amendment Distribution

When deciding which offerors are affected by a change, the CO must consider the 

stage of the procurement as follows:

(a) if offers are not yet due, the amendment must be sent to all prospective 

offerors that received the solicitation and it must be posted in the same 

place as the solicitation;

(b) if the time for receipt of offers has passed, but offers have not yet been 

evaluated, the amendment must be sent to all the responding offerors; 

and

(c) if the competitive range (see: § 330.60 (Competitive Range)) has been 

established and the amendment would have no effect on the basis for 

establishing the competitive range, only those offerors within the 

competitive range must be sent the amendment.

§ 330.20 Cancellation of Solicitations

§ 330.20.10 In General

Solicitations must not be canceled unless circumstances make cancellation necessary. 

Examples of circumstances are when there is no longer a requirement for the products 

or services, or the solicitation requires amendments of such magnitude that a new 

solicitation is needed.

§ 330.20.20 Notification

Written notice of the cancellation must explain the reason for cancellation. It must be 

sent to all prospective offerors that received the solicitation and posted in the same 

place as the solicitation.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 69

§ 330.20.30 Time Frame

If the solicitation is canceled before the date for receipt of offers, any offers received 

must be returned unopened to the offerors. If the solicitation is canceled after the date 

for receipt of offers, any offers received must be kept unopened for five years after 

cancellation.

§ 330.23 Disclosure and Use of Information

§ 330.23.10 Before Release of the Solicitation

Information concerning proposed purchases must not be released outside the judiciary 

before solicitation of offers, except for information publicized through briefings, market 

research, announcements, or notices. This information must be restricted to those 

having a legitimate interest.

§ 330.23.20 After Release of the Solicitation

(a) After issuance of a solicitation, only the CO, or others specifically 

authorized by the CO, may communicate or transmit information 

concerning the solicitation.

(b) When the information is needed for the preparation of offers or if lack of it 

would be prejudicial to uninformed prospective offerors, any information 

given to one prospective offeror must be furnished promptly to all other 

prospective offerors as an amendment to the solicitation.

(c) General information that would not give a prospective offeror an 

advantage may be furnished upon request, such as an explanation of a 

clause, a procedural requirement, or a provision of the solicitation. If it 

becomes apparent that an ambiguity must be clarified, or an error 

corrected, the solicitation must be formally amended.

§ 330.23.30 After Receipt of Offers

(a) The content of offers, the number or identity of offerors, and source 

selection information must be protected. This information is restricted to 

those having a legitimate role in the offer evaluation and award processes 

and is disclosed only to the extent needed to evaluate the offers. See 

also: Guide, Vol. 14, § 150.20.25(a) (Prohibition on Disclosing 

Procurement Information).

(b) During the preaward period, only the CO, and others specifically 

authorized by the CO, may transmit technical or other information and 

conduct discussions with offerors. Information must not be furnished to 

any offeror that — either by itself or together with other information —

would possibly give one offeror an advantage over others. However, 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 70

general information that is not prejudicial to others may be furnished upon 

request.

§ 330.26 Receipt of Offers

§ 330.26.10 Handling

Offers must be marked with the date and time of receipt and kept secure at all times. It 

is equally important to keep them secure before and after opening as well as during the 

recording and evaluation processes.

§ 330.26.20 Opening and Recording

After the time established for receipt, the CO will open and record the offers.

§ 330.26.30 Modification and Withdrawal

Offers may be modified or withdrawn in the same manner they were submitted. Written 

offers must be modified or withdrawn in writing and oral offers made in response to oral 

solicitations may be withdrawn orally. An offer modification must be received by the 

date and time set for receipt of offers. Notice of withdrawal of an offer must be received 

before award.

§ 330.26.40 Late Offers

(a) Any offer received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact 

date and time specified for receipt of offers is late and will not be 

considered, unless:

(1) it is received before award is made,

(2) the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer is in 

the judiciary’s best interest,

(3) the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer 

would not unduly delay the procurement, and

(4) one of the following situations applies:

(A) there is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received 

at the judiciary office designated for receipt of offers before 

the time set for receipt; or

(B) it is the only offer received.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 71

(b) However, a late modification of an otherwise successful offer that makes 

its terms more favorable to the judiciary, will be considered at any time it is 

received and may be accepted.

(c) Acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the judiciary office 

includes the time/date stamp of that office on the offer wrapper, other 

documentary evidence of receipt maintained by the office, or oral 

testimony or statements of judiciary personnel.

(d) If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal judiciary 

processes so that offers cannot be received at the office designated for 

receipt of offers by the exact time specified in the solicitation, and urgent 

judiciary requirements preclude amendment of the solicitation, the time 

specified for receipt of offers will be deemed to be extended to the same 

time of day specified in the solicitation on the first work day on which 

normal judiciary processes resume.

§ 330.26.50 Late Proposal Documentation

Each late offer and modification must be retained in the solicitation file with a statement 

as to whether it was considered, with the reasons.

§ 330.26.60 Facsimile Offers

If facsimile offers are authorized, Provision 3-115, Facsimile Offers is included as 

prescribed in § 330.10.30(q) (Provisions and Clauses).

§ 330.30 Failure to Acknowledge Amendments

§ 330.30.10 Awards Made Without Discussions

Offers lacking acknowledgment of an amendment, or clear indication in the offer that the 

amendment had been received, must be disregarded when the amendment affects 

price, quantity, quality, or delivery.

§ 330.30.20 Awards Made After Discussions

If the CO conducts discussions for an award, uncertainties regarding the contractor’s 

receipt of an amendment may be resolved during discussions.

§ 330.33 Mistakes in Offers

COs must examine all offers for mistakes. Communication with an offeror concerning 

potential mistakes is clarification, not discussion. See: § 330.50.40 (Resolving 

Mistakes in Offers). However, if the correction of a mistake requires reference to any 

document (such as worksheets or other data) not included with the offer, the mistake 

may be corrected only through discussions. See: § 330.53 (Award with Discussions).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 72

§ 330.36 Evaluation of Offers

§ 330.36.10 In General

(a) Offer evaluation is an assessment of both the offer itself and the offeror’s 

technical capability (as demonstrated by the offer) to perform the 

proposed contract successfully. The judiciary must evaluate competitive 

offers and then assess their relative qualities solely on the evaluation 

factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations may be 

conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including:

• pass/fail; or

• adjectival ratings (e.g., fair, satisfactory, good, excellent).

(b) The relative strengths, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses 

supporting the offer evaluation must be documented in the procurement 

file.

§ 330.36.20 Price or Cost Evaluation

Prices or estimated costs must be evaluated according to Guide, Vol. 14, § 440 (Price 

Analysis) or § 450 (Cost Analysis). Price or cost analysis is necessary to determine the 

reasonableness and validity of a proposed price or cost estimate, and to assist in 

determining an offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract.

§ 330.36.30 Evaluation of Other Factors

Each offer must be examined to determine whether it meets the requirements of the 

solicitation. The specific purchase requirements, the evaluation factors, and the source 

selection plan determine the extent of the required analysis. The evaluation must be 

documented to include:

(a) the basis for evaluation;

(b) an analysis of each offer, including an assessment of each offeror’s ability 

to accomplish the solicitation requirements, and why the offer is 

determined to be acceptable or unacceptable;

(c) a narrative statement of the major strengths and weaknesses of the 

various offers;

(d) a summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking of each offer in relation to the 

best rating possible; and

(e) a narrative statement summarizing the evaluation team’s finding.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 73

§ 330.36.40 Only One Offer

If only one offer is received in response to a competitive solicitation, it may be evaluated 

and considered for award. The offer is considered competitive if more than one source 

was solicited and there was a reasonable expectation of more than one offer. A 

determination of price reasonableness must be included in the procurement file based 

on:

(a) market research;

(b) previous purchases of the same or similar product or service;

(c) current price lists, catalogs, or advertisements;

(d) a comparison with similar items in a related industry;

(e) the CO’s personal knowledge of the item being purchased;

(f) comparison to an independent government estimate; or

(g) any other reasonable basis.

§ 330.40 Selection for Award

§ 330.40.10 In General

The award will be made to the offeror whose offer receives the highest evaluation 

and/or lowest price according to the evaluation factors identified in the solicitation. See:

§ 330.36.30 (Evaluation of Other Factors).

§ 330.40.20 Technically Acceptable/Lowest Price Awards

Awards under solicitations that specify technically acceptable/lowest price evaluation 

are made to the responsible offeror submitting the lowest priced offer that meets the 

technical requirements stated in the solicitation. This method is normally used for small 

purchases and standard commercial products or services for which there is adequate 

competition. See also: § 325.35.20 (Technically Acceptable/Lowest Price).

§ 330.40.30 Best Value Awards

(a) For awards under solicitations that specify best value evaluation, the 

source selection authority (usually the CO) is ultimately responsible for 

making the selection decision and is responsible for trade-off judgments 

involving price and other evaluation factors. Selection must be made 

according to the solicitation’s stated evaluation factors and must be 

documented. The documentation will include a determination by the 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 74

source selection authority that the price is fair and reasonable and the 

basis for determination. See also: § 325.35.30 (Best Value).

(b) Under the Contracting Officers’ Certification Program (COCP) (see: 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 140 (Contracting Officers Certification Program)), not all 

certification levels are authorized for “best value” procurements. The “best 

value” method of evaluation is more complex; therefore, only appropriately 

trained and certified COs may solicit for best value offers. For COs 

holding COCP certification levels not delegated this authority, the 

solicitation package using “best value” must be submitted to PMD for 

written approval before soliciting offers/proposals.

§ 330.40.30(c) Best Value

Procedure Details

(1) Evaluation 

Factors

Evaluation factors that are of value or concern to the requiring organization 

vary depending on the product or service, and may include, but are not 

limited to:

• quality;

• experience;

• delivery schedule;

• maintainability;

• ease of operation;

• size or weight, etc.;

• past performance; or

• qualifications of key personnel.

(2) Evaluation 

Strategy

The use of evaluation factors other than price requires the development of 

an evaluation strategy. The evaluation strategy must be developed by the 

CO with information from the requesting office. The evaluation strategy 

must identify:

• the need to use evaluation factors other than price;

• the evaluation factors to be used and their relative weight or order of 

importance;

• the overall importance of the other evaluation factors relative to price 

(i.e., greater than, equal to, less than); and

• the individual or individuals who will perform the evaluation (see: 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 210.70.40 (Evaluation Panels)).

(3) Award Award is made after evaluating each offer using the evaluation factors and 

the relative weight of the factors. The decision is then made by determining 

the proposal that offers the best value offered for the evaluated price. The 

CO will prepare a justification, which documents the trade-off of technical 

value to price.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 75

§ 330.40.40 Selection Documentation

(a) The source selection authority’s selection memorandum must specify any 

rankings/ratings and recommendations prepared by technical and/or price 

evaluation teams or pre-award survey teams.

(b) However, the findings of these teams are only guides for the source 

selection authority’s final selection decision and must be presented in 

sufficient depth to permit the intelligent weighing of alternatives and the 

making of trade-off judgments.

(c) The offers may not be compared to each other; they are compared to the 

evaluation criteria.

(d) The source selection memorandum must show the relative differences 

among the offerors, demonstrating their strengths and weaknesses as 

compared to the solicitation’s evaluation factors.

(e) The supporting documentation must include the basis and reason for the 

source selection decision.

§ 330.40.50 Responsibility Determination

The CO must make a favorable responsibility determination of the selected offeror 

before award. See: § 320.20 (Determining Responsibility or Non-Responsibility). The 

responsibility determination must be included as part of the source selection 

memorandum.

§ 330.43 Discussions with Offerors

§ 330.43.10 In General

A contractor may be selected, and award made, with or without discussing offers with 

the offerors. The need for discussion of offers depends on the circumstances of the 

purchase, such as the complexity of the requirement, the extent of competition, and the 

quality of the offers received.

§ 330.43.20 Discussions of Price

Whenever price is the most important (or the only) evaluation factor, award will normally 

be made without discussions. If adequate competition exists, offerors should be 

encouraged to submit their most favorable offers at the outset. However, even when 

award will be based on price alone, the CO may determine that discussions are 

necessary to determine that the price is fair and reasonable.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 76

§ 330.46 Rejection of All Offers

All offers received may be rejected if the CO determines that:

(a) prices proposed are unreasonable and discussions have not resulted in a 

reasonable price or prices;

(b) all offers are technically unacceptable; or

(c) offers were not independently arrived at in open competition, were 

collusive, or were submitted in bad faith.

§ 330.50 Award Without Discussions

§ 330.50.10 In General

(a) Verification, withdrawal, or resolving mistakes (see: § 330.50.40 

(Resolving Mistakes in Offers)) under this procedure does not constitute 

discussion.

(b) Award may be made without discussion whenever adequate competition 

or price analysis make it clear that acceptance of the most favorable initial 

offer will result in a reasonable price.

(c) Provision 3-100, Instructions to Offerors, prescribed at § 330.10.30(o) 

(Provisions and Clauses) for inclusion in all solicitations above the 

judiciary’s small purchase threshold, states that:

(1) the CO intends to award without discussions; and

(2) the judiciary reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the CO 

later determines them to be necessary.

(d) The provision with Alternate I is used if the judiciary intends to make 

award after discussions with offerors within the competitive range; or the 

provision is used with Alternate II if the judiciary would be willing to accept 

alternate offers.

§ 330.50.20 Resolving Uncertainties in Offers

Whenever there is uncertainty as to the pricing, technical, or other aspects of the most 

favorable initial offer, award may be made without discussions only when the 

uncertainty can be resolved by seeking a clarification. If the limited communications 

involved in seeking a clarification cannot resolve the uncertainty, discussions must be 

held with all offerors in the competitive range. For further guidance on the difference 

between discussions and clarifications, see: § 330.43 (Discussions with Offerors) and 

Glossary.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 77

§ 330.50.30 Equal Low Price

If equal low prices are proposed, and the solicitation contains no other evaluation 

factors, selection of the offer for award may be based on factors such as performance 

record, experience, or other factors in the judiciary’s interest. Award may be 

determined by drawing lots only if there is no other basis for selection.

§ 330.50.40 Resolving Mistakes in Offers

The following procedure will be used to resolve mistakes without discussions, if the CO 

informs the offeror of the suspected mistake, identifies the mistake, and requests 

verification. The CO must point out the circumstances giving rise to the suspicion of 

mistake (such as duplications, omissions or errors in computations, obvious 

misplacement of a decimal point, obviously incorrect discount). This must be done 

without disclosing other offers or the judiciary estimate. If a mistake is confirmed, the 

offeror may withdraw its offer or seek its correction.

(a) If the offeror verifies its offer, then the offer is evaluated as submitted.

(b) If the offeror requests correction of a mistake, the CO, with the approval of 

the PE and concurrence of OGC, may permit the correction without 

discussion if both the existence of the mistake, and the offer actually 

intended, are clearly ascertainable from the solicitation and the offer. If 

there is insufficient evidence to permit the correction without discussions 

and discussions will not be held, the offeror will be given a final 

opportunity to withdraw its offer. If not withdrawn, the offer is evaluated as 

submitted.

§ 330.53 Award with Discussions

(a) When appropriate, written or oral discussions may be held with offerors to 

resolve uncertainties in their offers, to give them an opportunity to correct 

deficiencies, and to revise their offers.

(b) Before conducting discussions, the CO must establish written 

prenegotiation objectives commensurate with the dollar value and 

complexity of the negotiation by writing a Memorandum of Negotiation 

Objectives.

(c) Discussions must not favor one offeror over another; reveal another 

offeror’s technical solution or any information that would compromise an 

offeror’s intellectual property; nor reveal another offeror’s price.

(d) If discussions are held with one offeror, all offerors in the competitive 

range must be afforded the opportunity to have discussions and submit 

revised offers, if appropriate.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 78

§ 330.56 Conduct of Discussions

(a) The CO is responsible for conducting discussions with the offeror’s 

authorized negotiators identified in the offer in Provision 3-130, Authorized 

Negotiators. The CO will use the assistance or participation of program 

officials, technical personnel, or others as appropriate.

(b) The content, form, and extent of the discussions is a matter of the CO’s 

judgment. Discussions are conducted to:

(1) advise each offeror of deficiencies in its offer in terms of the 

judiciary’s requirements, but not deficiencies relative to other offers, 

nor deficiencies resulting from the offeror’s lack of diligence or 

competence;

(2) attempt to resolve uncertainties concerning aspects of the offer;

(3) resolve any suspected mistakes by calling them to the offeror’s 

attention as specifically as possible without disclosing information 

concerning other offers or the evaluation process; and

(4) provide the offeror a reasonable opportunity to submit any cost or 

price, technical, or other revisions to its offer that may result from 

the discussions.

§ 330.60 Competitive Range

§ 330.60.10 In General

The competitive range must be determined on the basis of cost or price and other 

factors stated in the solicitation and include all offers that have a significant chance of 

being selected for award. When there is doubt as to whether an offer is in the 

competitive range, the offer must be included.

§ 330.60.20 Establishment of Competitive Range

The competitive range may not be established on the basis of an arbitrary standard. It 

must reflect the fair evaluation of the competing offers. The competitive range may 

include offers with the potential for improving their competitive position, after appropriate 

discussions and revision. Even if an offer has a potential for significant improvement, it 

may be excluded from the competitive range if, relative to other offers, it has no 

significant chance of selection for award.

§ 330.60.30 Elimination of Offers

(a) If the CO determines that the number of offerors that would otherwise be 

included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 79

efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may limit the number of 

offerors in the competitive range. This will include the greatest number 

that will permit efficient competition among the offerors with the highest 

evaluation criteria ratings.

(b) However, elimination of such offers must be done very cautiously. When 

negotiations are not anticipated to be complex or time-consuming, a 

relatively large number of offerors might not result in inefficiency.

(c) In contrast, a complex procurement may anticipate substantial 

negotiations and offer revisions. Then limiting the competitive range could 

be desirable.

§ 330.60.40 Notification

The CO must send prompt written notification to those offerors not in the competitive 

range and to those eliminated from the competitive range as a result of discussions.

§ 330.63 Best and Final Offers

§ 330.63.10 In General

After a completion of discussions, the CO will issue a request for best and final offers to 

all offerors in the competitive range. The request must include:

(a) notice that discussions are concluded;

(b) notice of the opportunity to submit best and final offers in the form of 

revisions to any aspect of the offer; and

(c) a common cutoff date and time that allows a reasonable opportunity for 

submission of written best and final offers.

§ 330.63.20 Reopening Discussions

After receipt of best and final offers, the CO must not reopen discussions unless it is 

clearly necessary and in the judiciary’s interest to do so, such as when information 

available does not provide adequate basis for contractor selection and award. If 

discussions are reopened, the CO must issue an additional request for best and final 

offers to all offerors still within the competitive range.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 80

§ 330.66 Selection and Negotiation

§ 330.66.10 Selection of an Awardee

Following evaluation of offers, the source selection authority (usually the CO) must 

select for award the offer or best and final offer demonstrating the best value to the 

judiciary on the basis of the evaluation factors stated in the solicitation.

§ 330.66.20 Negotiations after Selection

Any uncertainties or deficiencies remaining in the offer selected must be clarified or 

corrected through clarifications or discussions with the offeror, as appropriate, leading to 

a definitive contract. Negotiations must include the disclosure and resolution of all 

deficiencies and all unsubstantiated areas of cost and price. No changes may be made 

in the judiciary’s requirements or in the offer that, if made before contractor selection, 

would have affected the basis for selection.

§ 330.70 Award

§ 330.70.10 In General

(a) Award may be made by written acceptance of a signed offer or by 

execution of the award document by both parties. Where there have been 

no changes to the original proposal submitted by the selected offeror as a 

result of negotiations, etc., award may be effected by inserting a contract 

number in Block 2 and completing Blocks 19 through 28 of the Form 

SF 33 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) that was part of the solicitation and 

was signed and submitted by the offeror with their proposal.

(b) Where discussions and negotiations have resulted in changes to the 

original proposal and/or to the terms of the solicitation, award should be 

effected on a Form SF 26 (Award/Contract). The entire contract package, 

including the Form SF 26, should be sent to the selected offeror for 

signature before the CO signature. This ensures that both parties have 

the opportunity to review the document to ensure that it reflects all 

changes agreed on during the course of negotiations.

(c) Regardless of which form is used, performance may not commence until 

both parties have executed the contract document.

§ 330.70.20 Approval Requirements

(a) Single Award

If a proposed award requires higher-level written approval or delegation of 

contracting authority, award may not be made until the written approval or 

delegation has been obtained.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 81

(b) Multiple Awards

When more than one award results from any single solicitation, separate 

award documents must be executed, each suitably numbered, according 

to Provision 3-135, Single or Multiple Awards. When an award is made to 

an offeror for fewer than all items that may be awarded to that offeror and 

additional items are being withheld for later award, the first award to that 

offeror must state that the judiciary may make later awards on additional 

items within the offer acceptance period.

§ 330.70.30 Award Notification

Promptly after award, the CO must send all offerors a written notice including:

(a) the name and address of each offeror receiving an award;

(b) total award amount(s);

(c) a statement that award was made without discussions, if applicable; and

(d) a brief statement of the basis for the selection decision that addresses the 

selection in general terms and does not reveal another offeror’s trade 

secrets or other proprietary information.

§ 330.73 Award Debriefing

§ 330.73.10 In General

An unsuccessful offeror must request a debriefing in writing. Unsuccessful offerors, 

who request a debriefing, must be debriefed and told the basis for selection decision 

and award. Debriefings must be scheduled promptly.

§ 330.73.20 Conducting the Debriefing

The CO or a designated representative must conduct the debriefing with the assistance 

and participation of program officials, technical personnel, or others including OGC, as 

appropriate.

§ 330.73.30 Debriefing Information

Debriefing information must include the judiciary’s evaluation of the significant weak or 

deficient factors in the offer as compared to the evaluation criteria, and not point-bypoint comparison with other offers.

§ 330.73.40 Restricted Debriefing Information

Information must not be disclosed to any offeror as to:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 82

(a) trade secrets;

(b) privileged or confidential manufacturing processes and techniques;

(c) business and financial information that is privileged or confidential, 

including cost breakdowns, profit, indirect cost rates, and similar 

information; or

(d) unique or innovative concepts contained in an offer.

§ 330.73.50 Records

The CO must include a summary of each debriefing in the procurement file.

§ 332 Purchase of Services

§ 332.10 Service Contract Labor Standards

The SCLS, 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701–6707, formerly known as the Service Contract Act, 

applies to contracts over $2,500, including purchase orders, the principal purpose of 

which is to furnish services through the use of service employees for work to be 

performed in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. See: 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 130.20.55 (Labor Statutes Governing Contractor Wages and Benefits).

(a) The SCLS does not apply to the following, as defined in 29 CFR part 541:

(1) employees employed in bona fide executive, administrative, or 

professional capacities, or

(2) computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software 

engineers, and other similarly skilled computer employees.

(b) Some examples of service employees include:

• stenographic reporting services;

• equipment repair services;

• clerical services;

• janitorial services;

• copy center services;

• mail related services; and

• data collection, processing and analysis services.

(c) SCLS applies regardless of:

(1) the beneficiary of the services (judiciary or public);
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 83

(2) the source of funding (judiciary or the public); or

(3) the place of performance (judiciary or contractor’s premises).

§ 332.20 Statutory Requirement

(a) SCLS requires that service contracts over $2,500 contain mandatory 

provisions regarding minimum wages and fringe benefits. It requires 

contractors to pay their service employees at least the wages and fringe 

benefits prevailing in that locality and in no event may service employees 

be paid less than the minimum wages specified in the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (see: 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)).

(b) In addition to including a provision in the solicitation and resulting contract 

notifying contractors that the SCLS applies, a wage determination issued 

by the Department of Labor (DOL) must be included as an attachment and 

made part of the solicitation and resulting contract if the services are 

subject to the SCLS.

§ 332.30 Exemptions

(a) DOL’s implementing regulations allow contractors for certain types of 

services to be exempt. The two categories of exemptions include:

(1) maintenance, calibration, or repair of information technology 

equipment, office/business machines, and certain scientific or 

medical equipment for which micro-electronic circuitry or similarly 

sophisticated technology is essential; and

(2) the following additional services:

(A) automobile or other types of vehicle maintenance;

(B) financial services involving issuance of cards (e.g., purchase 

cards);

(C) hotel/motel services for conferences, including lodging 

and/or meals, that are part of the contract or subcontract for 

the conference (but excluding ongoing contracts for lodging 

on an as-needed or continuing basis);

(D) maintenance, calibration, repair and/or installation for all 

types of equipment where the service is obtained from the 

manufacturer or supplier of the equipment on a sole source 

basis;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 84

(E) transportation of persons by common carrier on regularly 

scheduled routes or via standard commercial services (e.g., 

commuter trains, buses, commercial airlines, shuttle vans) 

(Note: excludes charter services); and

(F) relocation services, including the services of real estate 

brokers or appraisers to assist judiciary employees in buying 

and selling homes (excludes actual moving and/or storage of 

household goods and related services).

(b) Exemption is not automatic. The offeror must affirmatively certify in either 

Provision 3-195, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor 

Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain 

Equipment – Certification; or Provision 3-220, Exemption from Application 

of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services 

– Certification, that it meets the conditions required by the DOL 

regulations to qualify for exemption. If the offeror does not certify 

affirmatively, the CO must include the appropriate wage determination in 

any resulting contract, as well as Clause 3-160, Service Contract Labor 

Standards.

§ 332.40 Obtaining Wage Determinations

(a) Most prevailing wage determinations may be obtained using the DOL’s 

Wage Determinations OnLine link at SAM.gov. The website contains a 

User Guide and FAQs for its use, and an email link to request assistance. 

The website asks questions specific to the proposed procurement (e.g., 

performance location, type of service) to determine the appropriate 

prevailing wage determination. If a wage determination is available, the 

website will provide a printer friendly version. The CO must print out the 

wage determination, include it in the solicitation and in the resulting award, 

and maintain it as file documentation.

(b) If the Wage Determination database does not contain an applicable 

prevailing wage determination for a contract action, the contracting officer 

must use the e98 process, an electronic version of SF-98 (Notice of 

Intention to Make a Service Contract and Response to Notice), to request 

a wage determination. To complete the e98, the CO may need to review 

the DOL publication, Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations, found 

on SAM.gov Wage Determination Learning Center to determine the 

appropriate classes of service employees needed to perform the work.

(c) In using the e98 process, COs must provide as complete and accurate 

information on the e98 as possible, ensuring that the email address 

submitted on an e98 request is accurate.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 85

(d) The CO must anticipate the amount of time required to gather the 

information necessary to obtain a wage determination, including sufficient 

time, if necessary, to contact DOL to request wage determinations that are 

not available using SAM.gov.

(e) Although the SAM.gov website provides assistance to select the correct 

wage determination, the CO is responsible for the wage determination 

selected. If the CO uses the e98 process, DOL will respond to the CO 

based on the information provided on the e98, and the CO may rely on 

that response as the correct wage determination for the contract.

(f) To obtain the applicable wage determination for each contract action, the 

CO must determine the following information concerning the service 

employees expected to be employed in performing the contract:

(1) the classes of service employees to be employed in performance of 

the contract using the Service Contract Act Directory of 

Occupations, found on SAM.gov;

(2) the locality where the services will be performed; and

(3) whether there is an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

for an incumbent contractor.

(g) If the CO requests a wage determination using the e98 process and has 

not received a response within 10 days, the CO should contact the DOL’s 

Wage and Hour Division to determine when the wage determination can 

be expected. The e98 website provides a telephone number for this 

purpose.

(h) If the CO requests a wage determination using the e98 process and the 

start of work is delayed, for whatever reason, more than 60 days from the 

date indicated on the submitted e98, the CO must submit a new e98. Any 

revision to the wage determination received as a result of the new e98 

supersedes the earlier response and must be incorporated in the contract.

§ 332.40.10 Impact of a Revised Wage Determination

(a) DOL’s Wage and Hour Division periodically issues revisions to prevailing 

wage determinations. The requirement to include a revised wage 

determination in a solicitation or contract is determined by the date of 

receipt of the revised wage determination by the CO.

(1) If the original wage determination was obtained using the wage 

determination at SAM.gov, the time of receipt is deemed as the first 

day of publication of the revised determination on the website.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 86

(2) If the original wage determination was obtained using the e98

process, the time of receipt is deemed to be the date the CO 

receives actual notice of a new or revised prevailing wage 

determination from DOL.

(b) Once a wage determination has been selected from the WDOL website for 

a solicitation or contract, the CO is responsible for monitoring the website 

for revisions.

(c) Whether or not the CO must incorporate a revised wage determination 

depends on when the revision is published on SAM.gov and when 

contract performance is required to start.

(1) If the revised prevailing wage determination is published after 

award of a contract that requires performance to start within 30 

days after award, the revision need not be incorporated in the 

contract.

(2) If the contract performance period does not start within 30 days 

after the award, any wage determination revision received by the 

CO 10 or more days before the contract’s specified start of 

performance must be incorporated in the contract.

§ 332.40.20 Incorporation of Wage Determinations

Upon award of a contract or a modification that incorporates a new wage determination, 

the CO must provide the contractor with a copy of DOL Publication WH-1313 

(Employee Rights on Government Contracts) along with a copy of the executed contract 

or modification. The WH-1313 SCA Poster may be printed in color or black and white. 

The contractor is required to post the WH-1313, with the wage determination attached 

to it, in a prominent and accessible location at the worksite where it may be seen by all 

employees performing the contract.

(a) In no case may a service contract be awarded without a wage 

determination if the SCLS applies. A copy of the wage determination 

should be provided to offerors when requesting quotes for services that 

are subject to SCLS to ensure that the pricing provided reflects 

compliance with the wage determination.

(b) If DOL determines, whether before or after award of a contract, that a CO 

made an erroneous determination that the SCLS did not apply to a 

particular procurement or failed to include an appropriate wage 

determination in a covered contract, the CO, within 30 days of notification 

by DOL, must modify the contract to include Clause 3-160, Service 

Contract Labor Standards, plus any applicable wage determination issued 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 87

by DOL. In certain cases, DOL may require retroactive application of the 

wage determination.

(c) If the contract is funded by fiscal year appropriations and the term of the 

contract is extended, such as by exercising an option, a new wage 

determination must be obtained and incorporated in the contract by 

modification.

(d) If the contract is not subject to annual appropriations, such as the copy 

center agreements (funded by the public) or contracts funded by the 

Judiciary Information Technology Fund, a new wage determination must 

be obtained every two years during the contract and incorporated in the 

contract by modification.

(e) The CO must equitably adjust the contract price to reflect any changed 

cost of performance resulting from incorporating a wage determination or 

a revised wage determination.

§ 332.50 Required Clauses and Provisions

Clause or Provision Include in ...

(a) Clause 3-160, Service Contract 

Labor Standards

solicitations and contracts over $2,500 principally for 

services covered by SCLS and performed in the 

United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, or any such award modified to exceed $2,500, 

including indefinite-delivery contracts and ordering 

agreements when orders are expected to aggregate 

more than $2,500; except if the award includes:

(1) Clause 3-215, Exemption from Application of the 

Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for 

Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain 

Equipment-Requirements; or

(2) Clause 3-225, Exemption from Application of the 

Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for 

Certain Services – Requirements

(b) Clause 3-175, Fair Labor 

Standards Act and Service 

Contract Labor Standards –

Price Adjustment (Multi-Year 

And Option Contracts)

solicitations and contracts for fixed price services that:

(1) include Clause 3-160, Service Contract Labor 

Standards;

(2) exceed the judiciary’s small purchase threshold; 

and

(3) include options to extend the period of 

performance or solicit a multi-year proposal.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 88

§ 332.50 Required Clauses and Provisions

Clause or Provision Include in ...

(c) Clause 3-180, Fair Labor 

Standards Act and Service 

Contract Labor Standards –

Price Adjustment

solicitations and contracts for fixed price services that:

(1) include Clause 3-160, Service Contract Labor 

Standards;

(2) exceed the judiciary’s small purchase threshold; 

and

(3) do not include options to extend the period of 

performance or solicit multi-year proposals.

(d) Provision 3-195, Exemption 

from Application of the Service 

Contract Labor Standards to 

Contracts for Maintenance, 

Calibration, or Repair of Certain 

Equipment – Certification

solicitations for the types of services listed in 

§ 332.30(a) (Exemptions) when the resultant award 

may be exempt from Service Contract Labor 

Standards coverage.

(e) Clause 3-200, Service Contract 

Labor Standards – Place of 

Performance Unknown

solicitations and contracts when the place of 

performance is unknown at the time the solicitation is 

issued. When the procurement is subject to the SCLS 

statute and publicizing is required (see: § 315.10 

(Policy)), the CO will include a statement in the notice 

to the effect that:

(1) the place of performance is unknown at the time 

the solicitation was issued;

(2) the CO has requested wage determinations for 

the possible places or areas of performance; and

(3) the CO will request wage determinations for 

additional possible places of performance if asked 

to do so in writing.

(f) Clause 3-215, Exemption from 

Application of the Service 

Contract Labor Standards to 

Contracts for Maintenance, 

Calibration, or Repair of Certain 

Equipment – Requirements

solicitations for the types of services listed in 

§ 332.30(a) (Exemptions) when the resultant award 

may be exempt from SCLS coverage;

resulting contracts when the successful offeror has 

affirmatively certified that it qualifies for exemption.

(g) Provision 3-220, Exemption 

from Application of the Service 

Contract Labor Standards to 

Contracts for Certain Services –

Certification

solicitations for the types of services listed in 

§ 332.30(b) (Exemptions) when the resultant award 

may be exempt from SCLS statute coverage.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 89

§ 332.50 Required Clauses and Provisions

Clause or Provision Include in ...

(h) Clause 3-225, Exemption from 

Application of the Service 

Contract Labor Standards to 

Contracts for Certain Services –

Requirements

solicitations for the types of services listed in 

§ 332.30(b) (Exemptions) when the resultant award 

may be exempt from SCLS statute coverage;

in resulting contracts when the successful offeror has 

affirmatively certified that it qualifies for exemption.

§ 335 Justifications and Approvals for Limiting Competition

§ 335.10 In General

COs must take all reasonable steps to avoid contracting without providing for 

competition. However, there are valid circumstances when it is both necessary and in 

the judiciary’s best interest to award a sole source contract or to limit competition.

§ 335.20 Procedures

(a) A written justification is required when a requirement exceeds the 

applicable threshold (see: § 325.15 (Open Market Competition), 

§ 310.50.53(g)(2)(A) (Ordering from BPAs under GSA Schedules), and 

§ 310.60.20(c) (Ordering Scenarios)), and the CO limits competition by not 

competing or providing fair opportunity among contractors (see: Guide, 

Vol. 14, § 410.30.65 (Fair Opportunity Process for Delivery Orders or Task 

Orders – OFAC)).

(b) When limiting competition, the CO must:

(1) prepare a written justification specifically demonstrating the basis 

for limiting competition; and

(2) ensure that any required approval of the justification is obtained 

before issuance of the solicitation.

§ 335.30 Limitations

Limiting competition cannot be justified on the basis of insufficient time to conduct a 

competitive procurement because of:

(a) a lack of advance planning by the requesting office; or

(b) concerns related to the amount of, or expiration of, funds available to the 

requesting office.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 90

§ 335.40 Justification Not Required

§ 335.20 (Procedures) does not apply to the following:

(a) Purchases of products and services from qualified workshops, as 

determined by the Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or 

Severely Disabled. See: § 310.20 (Workshop for People Who are Blind 

or Severely Disabled).

(b) Orders placed against single-award national judiciary contracts or BPAs. 

See: § 310.40 (Judiciary-Wide Contracts and Blanket Purchase 

Agreements (BPAs)).

(c) Orders placed against other agency single-award contracts. See: 

§ 310.60 (Other Federal Agency Contracts). See also: Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 410.30.65 (Fair Opportunity Process for Delivery Orders or Task Orders 

– OFAC).

(d) Purchases not expected to exceed the applicable competition threshold. 

See: § 325.15.10 (Competition Threshold).

(e) Purchases under GSA schedule contract not expected to exceed the GSA 

competition threshold. See: § 310.50.43(a) (Orders At or Below the 

GSA's Competition Threshold). For procedures when limiting 

consideration of sources when placing orders or establishing BPAs under 

GSA schedule contracts. See: § 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on Orders 

Placed Under Federal Supply Schedules).

(f) Orders placed under single-award indefinite-delivery contracts. See: 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 410.30.63 (Competition Process for Delivery Orders and 

Task Orders – Open Market).

(g) Purchases made by COCP Level 2 COs according to the policies and 

procedures applicable to the special program delegation being used. See: 

Guide Vol. 14, § 140.25 (Level 2 Certification: Special Program 

Delegation).

(h) Purchases made with a “brand name or equal” description. (Note: When 

such descriptions are used, the product’s salient characteristics must also 

be listed with the “brand name or equal” description in the solicitation.)

(i) Modifications within the scope of a contract or the exercise of priced

options (those priced and evaluated at the time of contract award).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 91

(j) Purchases from utilities. (Note: “Utilities” does not include local and longdistance voice and data services, but includes services such as water, 

sewer, gas, and electric.)

§ 335.50 Use of Brand Name Descriptions

(a) A procurement that uses a brand name description or other purchase 

description to specify a particular brand name, product, or feature of a 

product that is peculiar to one manufacturer, limits competition regardless 

of the number of sources solicited. Use of such a description must be 

justified and approved using the AO Form that is applicable to the award. 

For appropriate forms, see:

• § 335.60.30 (Justification for Limiting Open Market Competition), for 

open market purchases;

• § 310.50.66 (Limiting Sources Based on Items Particular to One 

Manufacturer (Brand Name)), for orders against GSA Schedule 

contracts/BPAs; and

• Guide, Vol. 14, § 410.30.73 (Documenting Exceptions to Fair 

Opportunity Requirement), for orders under another agency’s multiaward IDIQ contract.

(b) The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the 

procurement is essential to the judiciary’s requirements, thereby 

precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company.

(c) “Brand name or equal” descriptions, and other purchase descriptions that 

permit prospective contractors to offer products other than those 

specifically referenced by brand name, do not limit competition and 

therefore do not require justification and approval to support their use. 

See: § 335.40(h) (Justification Not Required).

§ 335.60 Limiting Competition – Open Market Purchases

§ 335.60.10 Adequate Competition

(a) Adequate competition must be sought for any open market purchase 

expected to exceed the judiciary competition threshold (see: § 325.15.10 

(Competition Threshold)), except when:

(1) public exigency requires the immediate delivery of the products or 

performance of the services due to unusual and compelling 

urgency;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 92

(2) the CO certifies that only one responsible source of supply is 

available, and no other products or services will satisfy judiciary 

requirements; or

(3) the services are required to be performed by the contractor in 

person and are:

(A) of a technical and professional nature (see: Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 520 (Experts and Consultants)); or

(B) under the judiciary supervision and paid for on a time basis 

(see: Guide, Vol. 14, § 510 (Personal Services Contracts)).

(b) A one-time delegation of authority from PMD is required for a COCP Level 

3 CO to use exception in subparagraph (a)(1) above, regardless of dollar 

value of the purchase. When using the exceptions in subparagraph (a)(2) 

or (a)(3), a one-time delegation of procurement authority by PMD is only 

required when the purchase exceeds the dollar value specified in Guide, 

Vol. 14, § 140.30.30(g) (Level 3 Delegation).

§ 335.60.20 Establishing Adequate Competition 

(a) The CO must not award any open market contract above the judiciary 

competition threshold without providing for adequate competition, unless 

the CO justifies the limitation of competition in writing.

(b) For open market purchases above the competition threshold but not 

exceeding the judiciary small purchase threshold, adequate competition is 

provided by complying with § 325.20.10 (Competition Guidelines).

(c) For open market purchases above the judiciary small purchase threshold, 

adequate competition is provided by complying with § 330.10.20 

(Soliciting Under Standard Competitive Contracting Procedures).

§ 335.60.30 Justification for Limiting Open Market Competition 

(a) Judiciary COs must justify an award that exceeds the judiciary competition 

threshold where the competition requirements in § 325.20 (Competitive 

Small Purchase Procedures) are not met. Justification must be completed 

using Form AO 370A (Justification for Limiting Open Market Competition 

(JLOC)) (formerly the JOFOC).

(b) The JLOC is not used when limiting competition under GSA FSS and 

OFACs, such as NASA SEWP. See: § 310.50.63 (Limiting Sources on 

Orders Placed Under Federal Supply Schedules) and Guide, Vol. 14, 

§ 410.30.73 (Documenting Exceptions to Fair Opportunity Requirement).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 93

(c) Each JLOC must be signed by a CO with delegated procurement authority 

at or exceeding COCP Level 3, and must include the CO’s certification 

that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, the justification is 

accurate and complete. The CO may require that technical or 

requirements personnel provide signed certification on the Form AO 370A 

that the technical information provided is, to the best of the personnel’s 

knowledge and belief, accurate and complete.

(d) Each JLOC signed by a CO holding COCP Level 3 authority must be 

approved in writing by the judiciary official holding the judiciary 

organization’s delegated procurement authority, as identified in Guide, 

Vol. 14, § 120.20.10(b) (Delegation to Chief Judges and Certain Judiciary 

Officials), or the PLO, if delegated. Justifications for Limiting Competition 

for purchases exceeding $25,000 may only be signed by COCP Level 3 

COs and delegated official after obtaining a one-time delegation of 

procurement authority from PMD.

(e) Each JLOC signed by a CO holding delegated procurement authority at 

COCP Level 4 or above must be approved according to internal PMD 

approval procedures.

(f) Each justification must contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the 

use of the specific authority cited.

§ 335.70 Process for Orders Against Established Multiple Award Contracts 

and BPAs – Open Market

(a) Orders against single award BPAs established under § 325.50.30 (Open 

Market Single Award BPA) or single award IDIQ contracts need not be 

competed or advertised.

(b) Orders against judiciary-wide contracts and BPAs are subject to the 

ordering procedures associated with that contract or BPA.

(c) Orders against multiple award BPAs or IDIQ contracts with an estimated 

price not exceeding the judiciary competition threshold (see: § 325.15 

(Open Market Competition)) need not be competed or advertised. 

Authorized users may place the order directly under any of the established 

BPAs or IDIQ contracts when the need for the product or service arises. 

However, COs are encouraged to rotate such orders among holders of 

multiple award BPAs or IDIQ contracts.

(d) Orders against multiple award BPAs or IDIQ contracts with an estimated 

price exceeding the judiciary competition threshold (see: § 325.15 (Open 

Market Competition)) need not be advertised, but must be competed 

unless supported by a written justification that one of the circumstances 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 94

described in § 335.60.10 (Adequate Competition) applies to the call or 

order. The justification must be prepared and approved according to 

§ 335.60.30 (Justification for Limiting Open Market Competition).

§ 340 Unsolicited Offers

§ 340.10 Definition

Unsolicited offers allow unique and innovative ideas or approaches that have been 

developed outside the government to be made available to the judiciary for use in 

accomplishing its mission. Unsolicited offers are initiated by a potential contractor with 

the intent that the judiciary will enter into a contract with the offeror for efforts supporting 

the judiciary mission. They often represent a substantial investment of time and effort 

by the offeror.

§ 340.10.10 Exclusions

Unsolicited offers are not advertising material, commercial item offers, contributions 

(see: Glossary), or routine correspondence on technical issues.

§ 340.10.20 Requirement for Valid Offer

A valid unsolicited offer must:

(a) be innovative and unique;

(b) be independently originated and developed by the offeror;

(c) be prepared without judiciary supervision, endorsement, direction, or 

direct judiciary involvement;

(d) include sufficient detail to permit a determination that judiciary support 

could be worthwhile, and the proposed work could benefit the judiciary’s 

mission responsibilities; and

(e) not be an advance offer for a known judiciary requirement that can be 

acquired by competitive methods.

Note: Unsolicited offers in response to a publicized general statement of judiciary 

needs are considered independently originated.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 95

§ 340.20 Judiciary Points of Contact

§ 340.20.10 In General

Only the CO has the authority to bind the judiciary regarding unsolicited offers. The CO 

will be the primary point of contact to receive any unsolicited offers and to manage the 

evaluation process.

§ 340.20.20 Preliminary Contact

Preliminary contact with a judiciary CO before preparing a detailed unsolicited offer or 

submitting proprietary information to the judiciary may save considerable time and effort 

for both parties. The CO will provide information about the preliminary contact to the 

applicable judiciary program or other appropriate judiciary personnel. The CO will make 

available to potential offerors of unsolicited offers at least the following information:

(a) procedures for submission and evaluation of unsolicited offers; and

(b) instructions for identifying and marking proprietary information so that it is 

protected.

§ 340.30 Content of Unsolicited Offers

Unsolicited offers must contain the following information to permit consideration in an 

objective and timely manner:

§ 340.30 Content of Unsolicited Offers

Information Type Contents

(a) Basic (1) offeror’s name, address and type of organization (e.g., profit, 

nonprofit, educational);

(2) names and telephone numbers of technical and business personnel 

to be contacted for evaluation or negotiation purposes;

(3) identification of proprietary data to be used only for evaluation 

purposes;

(4) names of other federal, state or local agencies or parties receiving 

the offer or funding the proposed effort;

(5) date of submission; and

(6) signature of a person authorized to represent and contractually 

obligate the offeror.

(b) Technical (1) concise title and abstract of the proposed effort (approximately 200 

words);
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 96

§ 340.30 Content of Unsolicited Offers

Information Type Contents

(2) a reasonably complete discussion stating:

• the objectives of the effort or activity,

• the method or approach,

• extent of effort to be employed,

• the nature and extent of the anticipated results, and

• the manner in which the work will help to support 

accomplishment of the judiciary’s mission;

(3) names and biographical information on the offeror’s key personnel 

who would be involved, including alternates; and

(4) type of support needed from the judiciary (e.g., facilities, equipment, 

materials, or personnel resources).

(c) Supporting (1) proposed price or total estimated cost for the effort in sufficient 

detail for meaningful evaluation;

(2) period of time for which the offer is valid (a six-month minimum is 

suggested);

(3) type of contract preferred;

(4) proposed duration of effort;

(5) brief description of the offeror’s organization, previous experience, 

relevant past performance, and facilities to be used;

(6) other statements, if applicable, about organizational conflicts of 

interest, security clearance requirements, and environmental 

impacts; and

(7) the names and telephone numbers of judiciary personnel already 

contacted regarding the offer.

§ 340.40 Receipt and Initial Review

§ 340.40.10 Initial Review

Before initiating a comprehensive evaluation, the judiciary contact point will determine if 

the offer:

(a) is a valid unsolicited offer, meeting the requirements of § 340.10.20 

(Requirement for Valid Offer);

(b) is suitable for submission in response to an existing judiciary requirement;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 97

(c) is related to the judiciary’s mission;

(d) contains sufficient technical and cost information for evaluation;

(e) has been approved in writing by a responsible official or other 

representative, who is authorized to bind the offeror contractually; and

(f) complies with the marking requirements of § 340.80 (Limited Use of Data).

§ 340.40.20 Acknowledgment of Receipt

If the offer meets these requirements, the contact point must promptly acknowledge its 

receipt, include a copy to the appropriate judiciary CO, and process the offer.

§ 340.40.30 Rejection

If an unsolicited offer is rejected, the judiciary contact point will promptly return the 

unsolicited offer and inform the offeror, in writing, of the rejection and the reasons for 

rejection, with a copy to the appropriate judiciary CO.

§ 340.50 Evaluation

§ 340.50.10 In General

Comprehensive evaluations must be coordinated by the judiciary contact point, who will 

attach or imprint on each unsolicited offer, circulated for evaluation, the legend required 

by § 340.80.40 (Cover Sheet).

§ 340.50.20 Evaluation Factors

When performing a comprehensive evaluation of an unsolicited offer, evaluators must 

consider the following factors, in addition to any other factors appropriate for the 

particular offer:

(a) unique, innovative, and meritorious methods, approaches, or concepts 

demonstrated by the offer;

(b) potential contribution of the effort to the judiciary’s specific mission;

(c) the offeror’s capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or 

unique combinations of these that are integral factors for achieving the 

offer objectives;

(d) the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal 

investigator, team leader, or key personnel critical to achieving the offer 

objectives; and
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 98

(e) the realism of the proposed cost/price.

§ 340.50.30 Notification

The evaluators must notify the judiciary point of contact of their recommendations when 

the evaluation is completed.

§ 340.60 Criteria for Acceptance and Negotiation of an Unsolicited Offer

§ 340.60.10 In General

A favorable comprehensive evaluation of an unsolicited offer does not justify awarding a 

contract without providing for full and open competition. The judiciary point of contact 

must reject and return an unsolicited offer to the offeror, citing reasons, when its 

substance:

(a) is available to the judiciary without restriction from another source;

(b) closely resembles a pending competitive procurement requirement;

(c) does not relate to the judiciary’s mission;

(d) does not demonstrate an innovative and unique method, approach, or 

concept; or

(e) is otherwise not deemed a meritorious offer.

§ 340.60.20 Conditions for Acceptance

The CO may commence negotiations on a sole source basis only when:

(a) the judiciary requesting office sponsoring the procurement furnishes the 

necessary funds;

(b) an unsolicited offer has received a favorable comprehensive evaluation;

(c) a valid sole source justification has been documented and approved in 

writing (see: § 335.30 (Limitations)); and

(1) the source has submitted an unsolicited offer that demonstrates a 

unique capability to provide the particular products or services 

proposed;

(2) the unsolicited proposal offers a product, concept, or services not 

otherwise available to the judiciary; and

(3) the unsolicited proposal does not resemble the substance of a 

pending competitive procurement.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 99

§ 340.70 Prohibitions

§ 340.70.10 In General

Judiciary personnel will not use any data, concept, idea, or other part of an unsolicited 

offer as the basis, or part of the basis, for a solicitation or in negotiations with any other 

firm unless the offeror is notified of and agrees to the intended use. However, this 

prohibition does not preclude using any data, concept, idea or other part in the offer that 

also is available from another source without restriction.

§ 340.70.20 Non-Disclosure of Restricted Information

Judiciary personnel will not disclose restrictively marked information included in an 

unsolicited offer. The disclosure of such information concerning trade secrets, 

processes, operations, style of work, apparatus, and other matters, except as 

authorized by law, may result in criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1905.

§ 340.80 Limited Use of Data

§ 340.80.10 Restrictive Markings

An unsolicited offer may include data that the offeror does not want disclosed to the 

public for any purpose or used by the judiciary except for evaluation purposes. An 

offeror wanting the data restricted must mark the title page with the following legend:

Use and Disclosure of Data

This offer includes data that must not be disclosed outside the judiciary and must not be 

duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate this 

offer. However, if a contract is awarded to this offeror, as a result of, or in connection with, 

the submission of the data, the judiciary has the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to 

the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the judiciary’s right 

to use information contained in the offer if obtainable from another source without restriction. 

The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other 

identification of sheets/page numbers].

§ 340.80.20 Page Markings

The offeror must also mark each sheet of data it wants restricted with the following 

legend:

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the 

restriction on the title page of this offer.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 100

§ 340.80.30 Use of Different Legend

The judiciary point of contact must reject and return to the offeror any unsolicited offer 

marked with a legend different from that provided in § 340.80.10 (Restrictive Markings). 

The return letter must state that the offer cannot be considered because it is 

impracticable for the judiciary to comply with the legend. It must further state that the 

judiciary will consider the offer if it is resubmitted with the proper legend.

§ 340.80.40 Cover Sheet

The judiciary point of contact must place a cover sheet on the offer or clearly mark it as 

follows, unless the offeror clearly states in writing that no restrictions are imposed on the 

disclosure or use of the data contained in the offer:

Unsolicited Offer – Use of Data Limited

All personnel must exercise extreme care to ensure that (1) the information in this offer is not 

disclosed to an individual who has not been authorized access to such data according to the 

Guide, Vol. 14, § 150 (Procurement Integrity and Ethics), and (2) this offer is not duplicated, 

used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than evaluation of the offer, 

without the written permission of the offeror. If a contract is awarded on the basis of this offer, 

the terms of the contract must control disclosure and use. This notice does not limit the 

judiciary’s right to use information contained in the offer if it is obtainable from another source 

without restriction. This notice must not by itself be construed to impose any liability upon the 

judiciary’s evaluation personnel for disclosure or use of data contained in this offer.

§ 340.80.50 Cover Sheet and Offeror’s Restrictive Markings

Use of the cover sheet is solely a matter of handling unsolicited offers. It does not 

relieve an offeror of its responsibility to identify trade secrets, commercial or financial 

information, and privileged or confidential information to the judiciary. See: § 340.80.10 

(Restrictive Markings).

§ 340.80.60 Use of Outside Evaluators

If the offer is received with the restrictive legend (see: § 340.80.10 (Restrictive 

Markings)), the cover sheet (see: § 340.80.40 (Cover Sheet)) must also be used and 

written permission must be obtained from the offeror before release of the offer for 

evaluation by non-judiciary personnel. For further guidance on the use of outside 

consultants as evaluators, see: Guide, Vol. 14, § 210.70.40(d) (Evaluation Panels).
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 101

§ 345 Price Negotiations

§ 345.10 Establishing Negotiation Objectives

(a) Negotiations are generally held to reach agreement on price, profit or fee, 

and contract terms and conditions, whether for an initial award or for a 

contract modification.

(1) Before conducting negotiations, the CO must establish written 

negotiation objectives commensurate with the dollar value and 

complexity of the contract action. The process of determining 

negotiation objectives helps the CO judge the overall 

reasonableness of the offer and to negotiate a fair and reasonable 

price or cost.

(2) In setting the negotiation objectives, the CO must analyze the offer, 

and consider any advisory reports received, and other relevant data 

(such as independent cost estimates and price histories).

(b) The scope and depth of the analysis needed to support the negotiation 

objectives is directly related to the dollar value, importance, and 

complexity of the pricing action. The relevant issues to be negotiated 

must always be identified and objectives established for each issue. 

When the negotiation requires cost analysis, the negotiation objectives 

must also include both the cost objectives and a profit or fee objective.

§ 345.20 Negotiation

§ 345.20.10 In General

(a) Price negotiation does not require that agreement be reached on every 

element of cost. Reasonable compromises may be necessary.

(b) The recommendations of auditors and other specialists are advisory only. 

It may not be possible to negotiate a price that is in accord with all 

advisory opinions or with the CO’s negotiation objectives.

(c) The CO is responsible for exercising the necessary judgment and is solely 

responsible for the final negotiated agreement. However, the CO must 

include explanatory comment in the memorandum of negotiation when 

advisory recommendations on pricing are not adopted.

§ 345.20.20 Cost and Contract Type Factors

(a) The negotiation of contract type and price are related. They must be 

considered together with the issues of risks and uncertainty to the 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 102

contractor and the judiciary. Therefore, the CO must not become 

preoccupied with any single element.

(b) The contract type must be balanced with the risks, cost, and profit or fee 

negotiated. This will achieve a total result of a price fair and reasonable to 

both the judiciary and the contractor.

(c) Because profit or fee, is only one of several interrelated variables, the CO 

must not agree on profit or fee without concurrent agreement on cost and 

type of contract. See also: Guide, Vol. 14, § 410 (Contract Types).

§ 345.30 Detailed Pricing Information

(a) The CO should use every means available to ascertain whether a fair and 

reasonable price can be determined before requesting detailed pricing 

information (i.e., a detailed breakdown of all cost elements included in the 

proposed price, such as labor, material costs, overhead, G&A, and profit).

(b) Requiring the submission of detailed pricing information leads to increased 

proposal preparation costs, can cause extended procurement lead time, 

and consumes additional judiciary and contractor resources. The CO 

should request only sufficient pricing information necessary to make a 

determination that the negotiated price is fair and reasonable.

§ 345.40 Price Analysis

§ 345.40.10 In General

Before award, the CO must select and use whatever price analysis techniques will 

reveal whether the judiciary is receiving a fair and reasonable price. If none of the price 

analysis techniques are sufficient to determine the proposed price to be fair and 

reasonable, the CO must conduct a cost analysis.

§ 345.40.20 Techniques

One or more of the following techniques may be used to perform price analysis:

(a) comparison of proposed prices received in response to a competitive 

solicitation;

(b) comparison of prior proposed prices and/or contract prices under judiciary 

or other federal agency contracts with current proposed prices for the 

same or similar end items in comparable quantities;

(c) application of estimating metrics (such as dollars per pound or per 

horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that 

warrant additional pricing inquiry;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 103

(d) comparison with competitive published catalogs or price lists, published 

market prices or commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate 

arrangements;

(e) comparison of proposed prices with independent judiciary cost estimates; 

or

(f) ascertaining that the price is set by law or regulation.

§ 345.50 Cost Analysis

Cost analysis is normally appropriate only when there is not adequate price competition 

and no method of price analysis will reveal whether the judiciary is receiving a fair and 

reasonable price. If it is anticipated that cost analysis will be necessary, the solicitation 

should require that the offeror provide a complete detailed breakout of all cost elements 

as a part of the price proposal. See: Guide, Vol. 14, § 450 (Cost Analysis).

§ 345.60 Negotiation Memorandum

(a) Following any negotiation, the CO must promptly prepare a memorandum 

summarizing the principal elements of the negotiation. The memo would 

include the negotiation objectives referenced in § 345.10 (Establishing 

Negotiation Objectives), and must be approved in writing by the PLO.

(b) The memorandum must be included in the procurement file and must 

contain at least the following information:

(1) the purpose of the negotiation;

(2) a description of the purchase, or modification, with identifying 

number;

(3) a summary of the technical and price negotiation results;

(4) the name, position, and organization of each person representing 

the offeror or the judiciary in the negotiation;

(5) if detailed pricing information was obtained, an analysis of the 

various elements of cost;

(6) a summary of the offer, any advisory report recommendations, and 

the reasons for any significant variances between them and the 

negotiated amount;

(7) the most significant facts or considerations controlling the 

establishment of the negotiation objectives and the negotiated 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 104

price, including an explanation of any significant differences 

between the two positions;

(8) the basis for determining the profit or fee negotiation objective and 

the profit or fee negotiated, if applicable; and

(9) documentation of fair and reasonable pricing.

§ 350 Judiciary Protest Procedures

§ 350.10 Policy

(a) Any judiciary procurement organization receiving a protest must 

immediately forward it to PMD without taking any action.

(b) It is the policy of the judiciary to encourage parties to seek resolution of 

disputes with the AO.

(c) A mere disagreement with the decision of the CO does not constitute a 

protest. A “protest” for purposes of these procedures is a written objection 

by an interested party to any of the following:

(1) a solicitation or other request for offers for the procurement of 

products or services;

(2) an award or proposed award of a contract; and

(3) a cancellation of the solicitation or other request.

§ 350.20 Procedural Requirements

§ 350.20.10 Interested Parties

For purposes of filing a judiciary level protest, an interested party means an actual or 

prospective offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a 

contract or by the failure to award a contract.

§ 350.20.15 Election of Forum

The protestor has a choice of protest forums. However, if the same party files a protest 

with an external forum on the same solicitation as a pending judiciary protest, the 

judiciary protest will be dismissed.

§ 350.20.20 Filing a Judiciary Protest

A judiciary level protest must be filed in writing with the CO designated in the solicitation 

for resolution of the protest, who will promptly provide copies to the PE. It must identify 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 105

the solicitation or contract protested and provide a complete statement of the grounds 

for protest. A statement of intent to file a protest is not a protest.

§ 350.20.25 Protest Decision Authority

The PE is the deciding official for any judiciary level protest. In reaching a decision on 

the protest, the PE will confer with OGC. The PE’s decision will constitute the 

judiciary’s final decision.

§ 350.20.30 Time Frame for Filing a Protest

(a) A judiciary protest must be filed not later than 10 calendar days after the 

basis of the protest is known or should have been known.

(b) Any protest based on alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are 

apparent before the closing date for receipt of offers, must be filed before 

the closing date for receipt of offers.

(c) The judiciary has the discretion to consider the merits of any untimely filed 

protest.

(d) The AO office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern time. Time for 

filing a document expires at 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, on the last day on 

which such filing may be made.

§ 350.20.35 Form of Protest

A judiciary protest must include the following information:

(a) the protester’s name, address, and telephone number, including fax 

number and email address;

(b) the solicitation or contract number;

(c) identity of the contracting activity and the CO’s name;

(d) a detailed statement of all legal and factual grounds for the protest, to 

include a description of the alleged prejudice to the protester;

(e) copies of relevant documents;

(f) a request for a ruling by the judiciary;

(g) a request for relief and the protester’s suggested form of relief;

(h) all information establishing that the protester is an interested party for the 

purpose of filing a protest;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Ch. 3 Page 106

(i) all information establishing the protest’s timeliness; and

(j) a signature by an authorized representative of the protester.

§ 350.20.40 Processing of Judiciary Protest

The CO will immediately forward the protest to PMD, including a copy of the contract, 

any relevant documentation, and the CO’s explanation and recommendation. The PE 

will issue a written decision on the protest within 35 calendar days after the filing of the 

protest. The written decision will be binding on the cognizant contracting office.

§ 350.20.45 Protest Filed Before and After Award

(a) Protest Before Award

(1) When a timely protest has been filed with the CO before award, 

award may not be made until the matter has been resolved, unless 

the CO, after consulting with the PE, and with the concurrence of 

OGC, determines in writing that urgent and compelling 

circumstances significantly affecting the judiciary’s interests will not 

permit delay of the award until the protest has been resolved.

(2) When authorized to make an award before a protest is resolved, 

the CO must inform the protester, in writing, of the judiciary’s 

determination to proceed with the award.

(b) Protest After Award

(1) When a protest is filed within 10 days after award, the CO must 

immediately suspend performance pending resolution of the protest 

by the judiciary.

(2) Performance need not be suspended in those instances where the 

CO determines, in writing, that urgent and compelling 

circumstances exist or that it is otherwise in the judiciary’s best 

interests to allow the contractor to proceed. Before making such a 

determination, the CO must consult with the PE, who will 

coordinate with OGC.

§ 350.20.50 Resolution

After conferring with OGC, the PE will prepare a decision that sufficiently explains its 

reasoning. It must also advise the protester that the decision constitutes the final 

determination of the judiciary on the protested matter. A copy of the protest decision 

must be furnished to the protester and to the CO.