AVOID BRIDGES TO NOWHERE
Efforts to overcome the impact of a bridge action should routinely be explored.
A 2014 report (GAO 14-304) found that 12 of 34 contracts awarded on the basis of urgency were bridge contracts with a total value of more than $466 million and an average period of performance of 11 months. Te impact? Higher costs to DOD because of inefficiencies and the cost of administering bridge contracts, strain on the contracting workforce because bridge contracts must be justified and awarded while a follow-on contract is being sought, and the loss of benefits associated with full and open competition.
Another GAO report (GAO 16-15), released in 2015, examined the insight agencies had on the characteristics and reasons bridge contracts were used. GAO concluded that agencies have little to no insight into their use of bridge contracts, and that the period of performance of many bridge contracts spanned multiple years, increasing contract prices.
If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. A definition for “bridge action,” also referred to as “bridge contract,” does not exist in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS). Tis returns us to Lord’s 2018 memo that established a DOD definition and guid- ance for bridge actions:
A bridge action describes a non-competitive action requiring a justification to include, but not limited to, a formal justi- fication and approval (FAR Part 6 or 13.5), limited sources justification (FAR Subpart 8.4), and exception to fair oppor- tunity (FAR Subpart 16.5), to retain the current or similar product or service as a result of delay in the negotiation and award of a follow-on contract.
DOD ‘BRIDGE ACTION’ DEFINITION—A TWO-PART TEST Part 1: A non-competitive action requires a justification to retain the current or similar product or service.
96 Army AL&T Magazine Summer 2020
When the government solicits bids or proposals to award or modify a contract, the solicitation must promote full and open competition; that is, it must be issued without limiting compe- tition. A “justification and approval” must be prepared for a contract award or contract modification that limits competition to one or more companies. For this part of the test, there must be a need to continue performance of an existing contract until a follow-on contract is awarded.
Part 2: A result of a delay in the negotiation and award of a follow-on contract.
Tis second part of the two-part test applies where negotiation and award of a follow-on contract has been delayed.
What’s a follow-on contract?
FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) characterizes a follow-on contract as a “contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment.”
As noted, reasons for awarding bridge contracts may be delays caused by bid protests, lengthy revisions to government procure- ment requirements or delays in awarding a contract, as well as delays that may be caused by an inexperienced and overwhelmed acquisition workforce.
Te key, however, is that if there is no delay in the negotiation and award of a follow-on, the action is not a bridge action.
OPTIONS AND BRIDGE ACTIONS Under the “Option to Extend Services” clause at FAR 52.217- 8, the government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract, not to exceed six months.
Te contracting officer may invoke the clause to continue perfor- mance under the contract without full and open competition when the option was evaluated and priced at the time of award.
However, the clause is not “self-executing,” meaning that the conditions and price of any option must be evaluated before they are acceptable by both parties.
Would you agree to let a waiter in a restaurant select an entree for you? Suppose you enter your favorite restaurant and order chicken marsala. Te restaurant is out of chicken, so instead, the waiter serves you a bowl of mac and cheese. You tell the waiter,
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
