ARMY AL&T
CHALLENGES TO BRIDGE ACTIONS 1. Don’t let assumptions justify your actions.
Key point: Don’t assume the necessity for a bridge action outweighs the requirement to conduct proper market research.
FAR Part 6 requires that notices of proposed contract actions have been published and any responses considered before award of a sole-source contract using the “only one responsible source” and “no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements” exception to full and open competition.
An agency published a notice of its intent to award a sole-source bridge contract to a company named MTC for a six-month period, including an option to extend services for an addi- tional six months, and invited all responsible parties to submit capability statements. Career Systems Development Corp. submitted its capability statement to the agency as directed by the pre-solicitation notice. A day after the notice was published, the agency’s chief procurement officer signed the sole-source justi- fication and approval and awarded the sole-source contract to MTC. Te justification and approval stated that no other firms expressed an interest in the procurement.
Career Systems Development Corp. protested the sole-source action (B-411346).
It argued that the sole-source justification was deficient because the agency failed to consider its capability statement and the justi- fication was the result of a lack of advance procurement planning.
Te agency maintained that the invitation for capability state- ments was a “mere formality” and that the consideration of Career Systems Development’s capability statement was “actually irrel- evant” to determining whether the agency’s sole-source decision was reasonable
In sustaining the protest, GAO ruled that the agency’s failure to meaningfully assess any offeror’s ability to perform the require- ment with minimal disruption was improperly justified.
2. Don’t proceed in the company of predetermined conclusions.
Key point: Poor time management does not justify executing a bridge action.
In Global Dynamics LLC v. U.S., No. 17-1875C, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found that award of a bridge contract lacked a rational basis.
As a result of a number of protest actions, an agency posted its intention to award a fifth sole-source bridge contract to the incumbent contractor. Tis fifth bridge action increased the orig- inally estimated 120 days to more than 250 days because (1) three retirements resulted in a personnel shortage; (2) available personnel were working on a number of other matters; and (3) the expected value of the contract was significantly increased, requiring additional work.
Global Dynamics LLC challenged the fifth bridge contract, argu- ing that the agency’s decision to award the bridge was improper and prejudicial. Te Court of Federal Claims agreed, stating that staffing, prioritizing other work and the increased work under the contract were all the result of the agency’s failures.
3. Don’t avoid the fact that we knew the contract expiration date when the contract was initially awarded.
Key point: Lack of planning does not justify limiting competi- tion. [See FAR 6.301(c)(1).]
In Innovation Development Enterprises of America Inc. v. U.S., No. 11-217C, an agency had 5½ years available to plan for its follow-on procurement and failed to do so before awarding a sole- source bridge contract to the incumbent.
If there is no delay in the negotiation and award of a follow-on, then the action is not a bridge action.
Te agency’s justification was that market research could not be done in the short time available, and that currently no other contractors existed with both the technical and professional skills necessary to support the requirement.
Te Court of Federal Claims sustained the protest, saying that the agency could not have been unaware of the expiring five- year contract with the incumbent “well in advance” of the bridge
https://asc.ar my.mil 99
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
