Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Preparedness Grants Manual <br />$250,000, and a non-state entity may use a lower threshold but may not exceed the federal <br />threshold. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.1 (citing the definition of SAT from 48 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart 2.1). <br />See 2 C.F.R. § 200.216, § 200.471, and Appendix II as well as FEMA Policy #405-143-1, <br />Prohibitions on Expending FEMA Award Funds for Covered Telecommunications Equipment or <br />Services, the relevant program NOFO, and this manual regarding prohibitions on covered <br />telecommunications equipment or services. <br />6.6.2. COMPETITION AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST <br />Among the requirements of 2 C.F.R. § 200.319(b) applicable to all non-federal entities other than <br />states, to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, <br />contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, or invitations for <br />bids or requests for proposals must be excluded from competing for such procurements. FEMA <br />considers these actions to be an organizational conflict of interest and interprets this restriction as <br />applying to contractors that help a non-federal entity develop its grant application, project plans, or <br />project budget. This prohibition also applies to the use of former employees to manage the grant or <br />carry out a contract when those former employees worked on such activities while they were <br />employees of the non-federal entity. <br />Under this prohibition, unless the non-federal entity solicits for and awards a contract covering both <br />development and execution of specifications (or similar elements as described above), and this <br />contract was procured in compliance with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317 – 200.327, federal funds cannot be <br />used to pay a contractor to carry out the work if that contractor also worked on the development of <br />those specifications. This rule applies to all contracts funded with federal grant funds, including pre- <br />award costs, such as grant writer fees, as well as post-award costs, such as grant management fees. <br />Additionally, some of the situations considered to be restrictive of competition include, but are not <br />limited to: <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />Placing unreasonable requirements on firms for them to qualify to do business; <br />Requiring unnecessary experience and excessive bonding; <br />Noncompetitive pricing practices between firms or between affiliated companies; <br />Noncompetitive contracts to consultants that are on retainer contracts; <br />Organizational conflicts of interest; <br />Specifying only a “brand name” product instead of allowing “an equal” product to be offered and <br />describing the performance or other relevant requirements of the procurement; and <br />.Any arbitrary action in the procurement process. <br />Per 2 C.F.R. § 200.319(c), non-federal entities other than states must conduct procurements in a <br />manner that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed SLTT geographical <br />preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals, except in those cases where applicable federal <br />statutes expressly mandate or encourage geographic preference. Nothing in this section preempts <br />state licensing laws. When contracting for architectural and engineering services, geographic <br />location may be a selection criterion provided its application leaves an appropriate number of <br />qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project, to compete for the contract. <br />43