Item 35 - FY 2022 Emergency Management Performance Grant

Home Browse Search

39 The recognized procurement methods in 2 C.F.R. § 200.320 have been reorganized into informal procurement methods, which include micro-purchases and small purchases; formal procurement methods, which include sealed bidding and competitive proposals; and noncompetitive procurements. The federal micro-purchase threshold is currently $10,000, and non-state entities may use a lower threshold when using micro-purchase procedures under a FEMA award. If a non-state entity wants to use a micro- purchase threshold higher than the federal threshold, it must follow the requirements of 2 C.F.R. § 200.320(a)(1)(iii)-(v). The federal simplified acquisition threshold is currently $250,000, and a non-state entity may use a lower threshold but may not exceed the federal threshold when using small purchase procedures under a FEMA award. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.1 (citing the definition of simplified acquisition threshold from 48 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart 2.1). See 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.216, 200.471, and Appendix II as well as FEMA Policy #405-143-1, Prohibitions on Expending FEMA Award Funds for Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services, the relevant program NOFO, and this Manual regarding prohibitions on covered telecommunications equipment or services. Competition and Conflicts of Interest Among the requirements of 2 C.F.R. § 200.319(b) applicable to all non-federal entities other than states, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, or invitations for bids or requests for proposals must be excluded from competing for such procurements in order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantages. FEMA considers these actions to be an organizational conflict of interest and interprets this restriction as applying to contractors that help a non-federal entity develop its grant application, project plans, or project budget. This prohibition also applies to the use of former employees to manage the grant or carry out a contract when those former employees worked on such activities while they were employees of the non-federal entity. Under this prohibition, unless the non-federal entity solicits for and awards a contract covering both development and execution of specifications (or similar elements as described above), and this contract was procured in compliance with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317 – 200.327, federal funds cannot be used to pay a contractor to carry out the work if that contractor also worked on the development of those specifications. This rule applies to all contracts funded with federal grant funds, including pre-award costs, such as grant writer fees, as well as post-award costs, such as grant management fees. Additionally, some of the situations considered to be restrictive of competition include but are not limited to: •Placing unreasonable requirements on firms in order for them to qualify to do business; •Requiring unnecessary experience and excessive bonding; •Noncompetitive pricing practices between firms or between affiliated companies; •Noncompetitive contracts to consultants that are on retainer contracts; •Organizational conflicts of interest; •Specifying only a “brand name” product instead of allowing “an equal” product to be offered and describing the performance or other relevant requirements of the procurement; and •Any arbitrary action in the procurement process. Per 2 C.F.R. § 200.319(c), non-federal entities other than states must conduct procurements in a manner that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed SLTT geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals, except in those cases where applicable federal statutes expressly mandate or encourage geographic preference. Nothing in this section preempts state licensing laws. When contracting for architectural and engineering services, geographic location may be a selection criterion