FARSmarterBids
Bid Smarter. Far Smarter.

It is the policy of this agency to ensure that DLA acquires only items produced by, or under the direction of, approved sources. It is also agency policy to apprise our suppliers of changes in their approval status by promptly notifying a source, pursuant to FAR 9.207(b), upon its removal from an acquisition identification description (AID); and to actively facilitate approval of these sources (see 11.302-90(a)(1)-(3)).

(a) Roles of contracting officer and product specialist. The requiring Military Service provides the data to procure the correct item. The product specialist (PS) is responsible for maintaining the accuracy and currency of the technical/quality requirements and for ensuring that only approved sources are identified in the acquisition identification description (AID). (Detailed policy guidance for product specialists is provided in the DLA Technical Support Policy and Procedures Deskbook, which is maintained by the Technical and Quality Policy Division, J-74, and can be accessed electronically at https://today.dla.mil/J-3/J-334/ESTS-techsuppdeskbook.htm.) Contracting officers are responsible for performing all necessary actions for effective contracting. They must ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and procedures; safeguard Government interests; request and consider advice of appropriate specialists (audit, law, engineering, etc.); and exercise business judgment (see FAR 1.602-2). Contracting officers have a responsibility to ensure that the selected source has the intent and capability to provide the item in compliance with the terms of the contract, including the item description; and they have broad latitude to carry out their duties. However, the contracting officer is not authorized to determine what sources should be approved and cited in the AID. Contracting officers must follow the guidance at 11.302-90(c) to determine when pre-award referral to the PS is required to ensure that a prospective contractor is technically acceptable.

(1) Providing notification to sources removed from an AID.

(i) Whenever a PS removes a source from an AID, the PS will concurrently prepare a source notification letter, with no date or signature block, and forward it to -

(A) The contracting officer, if a purchase request exists; or

(B) The Competition Advocate (or other designated office, pursuant to 17.7501(b)(4)(iv) or (v)), if there is no purchase request.

(ii) Upon receiving the letter from the PS advising that a source was removed from an AID, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee (see 11.302-90(a)(1)(i) and (iv)) shall promptly review the letter to ensure it adequately states the specific reason(s) the source was removed and identifies the action(s) required for the source to become an approved source for the subject item. If so, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee shall ensure that the appropriate management-level signature block is added, and that the letter is promptly signed, dated and forwarded to the source that was removed from the AID. If the letter requires revision, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee shall immediately return the letter to the PS, specifying the required revisions, and the PS will immediately revise the letter and return it.

(iii) If a Source Approval Request (SAR) package is required to obtain approval for a source that was removed from an AID, a quote/offer from that source shall be evaluated in accordance with the same procedures used for processing alternate offers, except that cost savings thresholds are waived when the removal was not contractor-caused.

(iv) In some instances, a purchase request will exist at the time an effort is initiated to approve a source that was removed from an AID, but the contracting officer may have to proceed with award while the source approval decision is still pending. In such cases, the responsibility for tracking the request for source approval (see 11.302-90(a)(2)(ii)) shall transfer from the contracting officer to the Competition Advocate/designee). The contracting officer shall forward a copy of the source notification letter to the Competition Advocate/designee and advise that the action is being transferred in accordance with 11.302-90(a)(1)(iv). The contracting officer shall also advise the PS to contact the Competition Advocate/designee in the future regarding the subject source approval request.

(2) Approval of a source that was removed from an AID.

(i) The PS will track all requests for approval of sources that were removed from an AID. Requests for approval of sources include SARs, actions that are forwarded to the cognizant ESA(s), and actions assigned to another technical authority (e.g., on-site).

(A) Upon receipt of a response from the ESA(s) or other technical authority, the PS will promptly prepare a letter, with no date or signature block, to provide the approval or disapproval decision to the source that submitted the request for approval, and forward the letter to the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee (see 11.302-90(a)(1)(i) and (iv)). For disapprovals, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee shall promptly review the letter to ensure it adequately states the specific reason(s) the request was disapproved. If so, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee shall ensure that the appropriate management-level signature block is added, and that the letter is promptly signed, dated and forwarded to the source that was removed from the AID. If the letter requires revision, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee shall immediately return the letter to the PS, specifying the required revisions, and the PS will immediately revise the letter and return it.

(B) If the PS receives no response within the time frame agreed upon, the PS will promptly contact the ESA(s) or other technical authority and develop a good faith estimate of the revised response time. The PS will promptlyprepare a letter, with no date or signature block, to provide the revised response time to the source that submitted the request for approval, and forward the letter to the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee, who shall ensure that the appropriate management-level signature block is added, and that the letter is promptly signed, dated and forwarded to the source that was removed from the AID.

(ii) Having been advised that the PS is seeking approval of a source that was removed from an AID, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee (see 11.302-90(a)(1)(i) and (iv)) shall track the status of the request. If the PS does not provide a response to the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee within 5-10 days after the time frame agreed upon between the PS and the ESA(s) or other technical authority, the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee shall promptly contact the PS to determine the revised response time. The PS will promptly prepare a letter, with no date or signature block, to provide the revised response time to the source that submitted the request for approval, and forward the letter to the contracting officer or Competition Advocate/designee, who shall ensure that the appropriate management-level signature block is added, and that the letter is promptly signed, dated and forwarded to the source that was removed from the AID.

(3) Special procedures for items designated as critical safety items (CSIs). When an item is identified as a CSI and the PS removes one or more sources from the AID, the PS will identify all open purchase requests and open contracts to the assigned contracting officers or contract administrators. Contracting officers shall amend solicitations to reflect the updated AID. If any open contract will result in delivery of an item made by, or under the direction of, a source that is no longer an approved source for that item, the contracting officer or contract administrator shall coordinate with the PS to see if it can be promptly determined that the ESA or other technical authority is willing to accept the material, or if any other action can be taken to preclude the need for a contractual change. If not, the contracting officer or contract administrator may be able to issue a change order in accordance with FAR Subpart 43.2. For example, if the contractor is a non-manufacturer and there is at least one additional approved source remaining, the contractor may be able to provide the product of the other source without changing the scope of the contract. If such an agreement cannot be made, the contracting officer or contract administrator must issue a stop-work order in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.13 and seek source approval from the ESA or other technical authority before authorizing continued production. If the stop-work order is lifted, the contractor can submit a request for an equitable adjustment for any additional costs incurred as a result of the stop-work order. If the contractor, or its source, is not approved as a source for the subject item by the ESA or other technical authority, the ESA or other technical authority may still advise that the material is acceptable, but ordinarily the ESA or other technical authority will advise that products made by, or under the direction of, that source will be unacceptable to satisfy requirements for the subject item in the future until source approval is obtained. If the contractor, or its source, is not approved by the ESA or other technical authority to continue production of the subject item under an open contract, the contracting officer or contract administrator must terminate the contract for convenience and negotiate a termination settlement with the contractor in accordance with FAR Subpart 49.1.

(b) Prior procurement history not an indication of current source approval. When a previous manufacturing source is listed in the prior procurement history, this does not mean that the source is currently an approved source. A manufacturing source is not an approved source unless it is currently identified in the acquisition identification description (AID). If an offer is received from a manufacturing source that received one or more awards in the past but is not currently cited in the AID, the contracting officer must refer that offer to the technical/quality specialist for approval prior to making an award. Procurement history cannot be relied on to indicate that a manufacturing source is currently approved. For example, the previous award to the prior manufacturing source may have been made in error; the prior manufacturing source may have been approved for an earlier revision of the item but may no longer be approved for the latest revision; or parts made by the previous manufacturing source may have been defective, and the approved source cited in the AID or the Military Service Engineering Support Activity (ESA) may have revoked its approved status.

(c) Pre-award approval/referral requirements. (i) Contracting officers must acquire the item cited in the AID (i.e., an exact product) from the source(s) cited in the AID (i.e., an approved source); unless an exception is authorized in agency policy, or pre-award approval has been obtained from the technical/quality specialist. DLA policy is outlined in the table below. The table specifies when the contracting officer may proceed with the current award; or when the contracting officer is required, prior to award, to refer the offer to the technical/quality specialist and the ESA, and/or obtain approval of the award at one level above the contracting officer. Even when not required, contracting officers are responsible for obtaining technical, legal, or other advice whenever needed; therefore, contracting officers always have the discretion to go to the technical/quality specialist, the Office of Counsel, or other appropriate experts. (See 11.302-91 for additional procedures that apply to NSNs identified as CSIs.)

TYPE OF OFFER	CRITICALITY OF ITEM	CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO) CAN AWARD?	REQUIRES REFERRAL TO TECH/QUAL.?	REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM ESA?	AWARD REQUIRES APPROVAL ONE LEVEL ABOVE CO?
Approved Source Cited in AID Offering "Exact Product" Cited in AID	Noncritical or CIC Blank	Yes	No	No	No
	CAI	Yes	No	No	No
	CSI	Yes	No	No	Yes (Note 1)
Dealer/Distrib. (Nonmanufacturer) Offering "Exact Product"	Noncritical or CIC Blank	Yes (Note 2)	No	No	No
	CAI	Yes (Note 2)	No	No	No
	CSI	Yes (Note 3)	Yes (Note 4)	No	Yes
Unapproved Manufacturing Source Offering "Exact Product"	Noncritical or CIC Blank	No (Note 5)	Yes	(Note 6)	No
	CAI	No (Note 5)	Yes	Yes	No
	CSI	No (Note 5)	Yes	Yes	Yes
Any Source Offering "Alternate Product"	Noncritical or CIC Blank	No	Yes	(Note 6)	No
	CAI	No	Yes	Yes	No
	CSI	No	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note 1 Does not apply to fully automated awards, if system only permits a fully automated award when an approved source cited in the AID is offering an exact product cited in the AID.

Note 2 Contracting officers must either obtain traceability documentation prior to award, or must require suppliers in accordance with DLAD 52.211-9014 to retain documentation and provide it for review at time of Government source inspection, if applicable (see 11.302-91(a)(11)) or during random or directed post-award audits.

Note 3 Contracting officers must obtain traceability documentation prior to award.

Note 4 Quality assurance specialist (QAS) must conduct pre-award review of traceability documentation on which quality assurance letter of instruction (QALI) will be based. Referral to QAS is mandatory after award to finalize QALI. (See 11.302-91(a)(11).)

Note 5 Contracting officers must obtain traceability documentation and refer offer to technical/quality specialist prior to award.

Note 6 Technical/quality specialists must follow J-334 Deskbook and local procedures to determine if ESA referral is required.

(ii) The table at 11.302(90)(c)(i) only applies to the items and types of offers shown. It does not apply to items being acquired under a fully competitive technical data package (Acquisition Method Suffix Code (AMSC) G); to offers of Government surplus material, which are addressed separately in the procedures at 11.302(b)(90)); or to other types of referrals to the technical/quality specialist, which are addressed in the J-334 Deskbook and local procedures (such as, for example, waiver/deviation requests or engineering change proposals).