ARMY AL&T
Te total period of performance of a contract action using the unusual and compelling urgency authority may not exceed the time necessary to meet the unusual and compelling requirements of the work to be performed under the contract action.
Example 1. Te award of a sole-source bridge contract for home management and marketing services issued by the U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was protested to GAO. Te contract included a four-month base performance period and two four-month option periods. Chapman Law Firm protested the award, complaining that the term of the bridge contract exceeded HUD’s minimum needs. HUD explained, however, that the term of the contract and its two four-month option periods were necessary in light of the possibility that the litigation surrounding the requirement would become protracted. HUD noted that litigation surrounding the award of these services in other areas of the United States had lasted as long as nine months. GAO agreed and denied the protest. Given this history of litigation, the contract did not exceed the agency's minimum needs at the time of the award. (B-296847 Chapman Law Firm Co.)
Example 2. Faced with the urgent need to obtain control room services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded a six-month sole-source contract in 1985 with a source it deter- mined was the only source capable of performing the required work immediately.
Te FDA justified the need to obtain control room services as urgent and compelling circumstances. Te contract included options allowing the FDA to extend contract performance up to two additional 12-month periods and an additional 5.5-month period. IMR Systems protested the FDA’s sole-source contract to GAO, complaining that the FDA didn’t request offers from other potential sources. Although the GAO ruled that the action was reasonable, it also found that the urgent and compelling circum- stances failed to justify the 5.5-month option period. (B-222465 IMR Systems.)
Example 3. Te Air Force determined in May 1990 that T-37 fuel cells for its training aircraft were urgently needed. It awarded a contract to each of two previously approved sources. Te justifi- cation to limit full and open competition was based on unusual and compelling urgency to avoid a critical impact on the availabil- ity of its T-37 training aircraft and, because any other firm would need to have its fuel cell successfully flight tested for 300 hours in order to qualify, competition was limited to only the previously approved sources. A protest of the awards was submitted to the
https://asc.ar my.mil 77
GAO, complaining that the flight testing requirement unnecessar- ily restricted competition. Te GAO sustained the protest because the Air Force could not explain why the 300-hour flight testing requirement was necessary for all firms that had not produced T- 37 fuel cells. Essentially, the Air Force included restrictive provisions that exceeded its minimum needs. (B-239837 and B-239839 Engineered Fabrics Corp.)
Key point. Understand the government’s minimum essential needs and clearly articulate in the justification why those needs are essential. Any need beyond the government’s minimum does not justify limited competition.
RULE NO. 5 Properly documenting the rationale for limiting competition on the basis of unusual and compelling urgency will expedite the government’s response to satisfy its needs.
Te information necessary to accurately document the rationale to limit competition based on unusual and compelling urgency may not be readily available, particularly when the urgency affects
A FAILURE TO PLAN
Even if half of your employees retired tomorrow, urgency caused by personnel turnover and an inexperienced staff is not adequate rationale to support unusual and compelling urgency. (Photo by Getty Images)
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
