UNDERSTANDING ARMY ACQUISITION
Lessons learned:
• Triad—Make sure the focus of market research aligns with the requirement.
• Red River—It is not reasonable to rely on other government contracts to establish what a customary commercial practice is.
• AGI—The contracting officer must make an informed business judgment to show that sources are capable of performing the work.
Market research is an enabler that will expand insight into the commercial marketplace, determine how quickly tech- nology is advancing, and obtain data on products, services, capabilities and busi- ness practices.
Te impact of hasty or superficial market research may restrict competition to sources that cannot offer the best resources toward the requirement. Knowing your requirement, knowing the market and understanding commercial capabilities will avert the lunacy of awarding a sole- source helicopter development contract to a single airplane manufacturer and avoid wasting years of inexperienced resources and millions of dollars.
THE MARKET RESEARCH TEAM APPROACH We need experts in the field to obtain the best results in market research—as a team. A contracting officer may not be qualified to conduct market research for biologi- cal dysesthesia dysfunction (the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields— cellphones, for example—on biological systems) studies. Similarly, a team of 12 personnel to research the commer- cial market for ventilation filters may be excessive.
CASE STUDIES: CHALLENGES TO MARKET RESEARCH
The extent, or scope, of market research should be adequate to iden- tify the capabilities that are available in the marketplace for meeting agency requirements. Two examples below consider both the scope and adequacy of market research and how they inform competition.
1. SCOPE Court of Federal Claims Palantir v. U.S. (No. 16-784C)
Issue: Was the scope of the Army’s market research adequate to determine whether there were commercial items that could meet its requirements?
In 2015, the Army issued a solicitation seeking a single contractor to be the system data architect, developer and integrator of the Army’s Distributed Common Ground System – Army Increment 2, the Army’s primary system for processing and disseminating multisensor intelli- gence and weather information to the warfighter.
Three requests for information preceded the solicitation, and Palan- tir, responding to those requests, explained that it had a commercial alternative to the development effort and that, therefore, development was unnecessary.
After responding, Palantir continued to try to express to the Army its views and frustration with the direction of the developmental procure- ment choice by the Army, and with the Army’s apparent lack of interest in considering commercially available alternatives. Nonetheless, the Army issued the solicitation.
Palantir submitted a protest to the Court of Federal Claims, contending that the Army acted arbitrarily and capriciously because Palantir claimed it had identified to the Army a commercially available technology that Palantir believed satisfied the Army’s requirements.
Palantir stated, “The most cost-effective and lowest-risk procurement approach is the acquisition of an open architecture data fusion plat- form through open competition for an existing software solution at a firm-fixed price (FFP). FFP vehicles shift performance risk to the contrac- tor, reduce the risk of cost overruns to the government, and shorten delivery schedules.”
The Court of Federal Claims agreed, and concluded that the Army neglected to fully investigate possible commercially available alterna- tives to meet its requirements.
Lesson learned: Here, the scope of the Army’s market research was unreasonably limited and therefore inadequate because it focused on
https://asc.ar my.mil
45
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
