(a) Requiring documentation and using procedures beyond those required by FAR Part 16.5 adds little or no value to the selection/placement of task orders under Multiple Award Task Order (MATO) contracts. Contracting Officers are admonished to keep submission requirements to a minimum and use streamlined procedures, including oral presentations. [AFARS Revision #11, dated May 4, 2004]
(b) Ordering decisions must be appropriately documented. Critical decisions, such the exception to the fair opportunity process described at FAR 16.505 (b)(2) or the selection of a higher priced proposal because of its greater technical merit, must be documented in sufficient detail to justify the decision.
(c) With the exception of architect-engineer contracts, price shall be considered in the ordering process. While awards should be made on the basis of best value, award decisions shall take price into consideration.
(d) Past performance information, including quality, timeliness, and cost control on earlier orders placed under the same MATO contract, should be considered in the ordering process. Past performance information should already be readily available in program and technical offices. Requests for contractor submission of past performance information with proposal submission under MATO contracts shall be eliminated.
[AFARS Revision #21, dated May 22, 2007]
