THE LURE OF URGENCY
authority of a justification to limit full and open competition under unusual and compelling urgency because the Defense Mapping Agency didn’t have enough time to prepare the work description for a competitive procurement. Te agency’s incumbent contract for grounds mainte- nance services expired on Sept. 30, 1992.
Te agency explained, in its justification to limit full and open competition, that it was unable to procure a replacement contract using full and open competition by Oct. 1, 1992, because the requiring activity was unable to prepare a timely statement of work because of personnel vacancies, inexperience of existing staff and an excessive backlog of work.
Te award was protested to the GAO. After
a competitive acquisition when there is a critical need for certain supplies or services to support military operations. (B-402908 Argon ST Inc.)
Circumstances of unusual and compel- ling urgency because a critical need exists for certain supplies or services impacting military operations is an important factor that may support restricting full and open competition. (B-243067 Lundy Technical Center Inc.)
reviewing the protest, GAO
concluded that the award was improper and sustained the protest, ruling that agency personnel turnover and inexpe- rience cannot justify a noncompetitive procurement based on urgency. In GAO’s view, a failure to promptly draft adequate specifications and “an excessive backlog of work” are both unacceptable justifications. (B-252614 TLC Services.)
Key point—Government personnel turn- over and inexperience essentially provide an excuse based on the limitations of the agency’s personnel.
RULE NO. 3 Risk to military operations or human safety is an important element justifying limiting competition based on unusual and compelling urgency.
Certain items of military hardware and weaponry may be needed quickly to support mission operations in theater. Te government should not risk injury to personnel or property in order to conduct
76 Army AL&T Magazine Fall 2021
Example. Te polypropylene sandbags used in Iraq had deteriorated at an unex- pectedly fast rate. In addition, more of the sandbags were needed to meet force- protection requirements. In November 2004, the government agency requiring these sandbags awarded four noncom- petitive contracts on the basis of unusual and compelling urgency because the United States would be seriously injured unless it limited the number of sources. A current, although unsuccessful, firm manufacturing these sandbags for the government under a separate government contract protested the awards to the GAO, complaining that it should have been solic- ited for the requirement.
Te GAO denied the protest and found that the urgency of the requirement was caused by the unexpected rapid deterio- ration of sandbags, the increased demand for sandbags in Iraq, and the performance problems experienced on the protester’s current contract.
Te contracting officer decided to restrict the current manufacturer from receiv- ing an award for the urgent requirement because of the delinquent deliveries under its existing contract and the outstanding questions concerning the acceptability of its offered sandbags. Compounding that was that even if that manufacturer were able to resolve the delinquency and
WELL, THAT’S UNUSUAL
In 2004, the GAO supported a government agency decision to award four non-competitive contracts for polypropylene sandbags because of the urgent and unusual need. (Photo by 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team)
acceptability of its products, it still would not have been able to complete delivery under its contract until March 2005. Tat further jeopardized the safety of military personnel. (B-295434 Total Industrial & Packaging Corp.)
In short, you may not always get what you want, but you get what you need.
RULE NO. 4 Te work to be performed may not exceed the government’s minimum needs.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176
