<http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2907-dod%E2%80%99s-use-of-class-ja/#comment-25373>
<http://schema.org/text>
"Steward.  \"DOD Class Justification are Used Primarily for Acquisition of Weapon Systems and related Components\" is an assessment outcome made by GAO and not necessarily a reflection of what FAR states… if this is what you mean then duly noted.  I sometimes take GAO’s responses literally regarding its reference to the FAR/DFARS.  THAT and as I was reading the report at 5:00 AM in the morning, coffee had not kicked in.   \nJoel.  It would seem simpler to establish an IDIQ type contract to the firm providing the OEM supply.  However, for lack of reasons (which I am still trying to question – it maybe that the agency want options on contract type when procuring the OEM supply), a Class J&amp;A would opt not having to do individual J&amp;A for every separate procurement that the agency does for the same OEM supply.   \nBreak: \nI did some more reading and I noticed that per discussion http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/955-sole-source-acquisition-under-far-subpart-135/, which referenced FAR 6.303-2(a)(4), which states “An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open completion” – reference no longer exist.  So, I guess terming a J&amp;A – OTFOC – Sole Source under FAR 13.5 would now be appropriate? \n"
<http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2907-dod%E2%80%99s-use-of-class-ja/&tab=comments#comment-25373>