I now see this situation as a never ending cycle, where we continue purchasing Brand X equipment using our justification over and over, making it impossible for Brand X competitors to compete. However, at some point? Think carefully about your responses to the 11 entries required by 6.
At some point, your Agency can no longer justify a Brand Name aka sole source acquisition of GPS equipment by saying its operations would be disrupted if it did not continue to use the incumbent contractor? At some point, you must take steps to promote competition.
In this case the GAO sustained a protest where the record showed that the agency did not satisfy its obligation to engage in reasonable advance planning and to promote competition. While the eBudget case involves software services, not GPS equipment, I believe it presents principles that apply to your circumstance. In this case, the Department of State DOS had been contracting for 9 years with the same firm for implementation, maintenance, enhancement, and support for DOS? In their role of promoting and providing for competition, contracting officials must act affirmatively to obtain and safeguard competition; they cannot take a passive approach and remain in a noncompetitive position where they could reasonably take steps to enhance competition.
VSE Corp. See also S. CICA further provides that under no circumstance may noncompetitive procedures be used due to a lack of advance planning by contracting officials. Although the requirement for advance planning is not a requirement that such planning be successful or error-free, see Abbott Prods.
Here, we conclude that the agency has failed to comply with the CICA mandate for reasonable advance planning. With regard to the feasibility of alternatives to a sole-source award, the agency principally focuses on the difficulties associated with either acquiring a new software system, or having another firm perform the required services without license rights to the RGII software. The agency also asserts that its advance planning efforts have been reasonable in that it has taken steps to avoid expansion of its reliance on RGII.
In this regard, the agency notes, for example, that it has been considering using a program developed by another agency office, the Bureau of European Affairs, to meet its needs here, instead of contracting with RGII for the development of additional proprietary software.
While, as discussed above, it is reasonable to conclude that, given the restrictive nature of the agency? The agency has produced no record of any steps that it has taken to end its reliance on the services of the incumbent to maintain the existing software systems; in fact, this latest proposed sole-source award has a potential term of 5 years.
Based upon the foregoing, it seems to me that your agency needs to start planning a competition for GPS equipment.
If you are challenged, you will have trouble defending another sole source. I agree. Interesting read. We do need to take steps to promote future competition and end this cycle. I'm not sure if that's what we need to do but it may be a good starting point for our future planning efforts. From what I know about the market for this type equipment, I believe our only impact would be training and costs associated with personnel learning a new system.
Actual purchase costs are probably about the same. I've seen agencies in similar situations do competitions. The solicitation describes the status quo and includes a schedule to replace equipment currently in use in a staggered or staged mode.
The incumbent has an advantage because all their equipment isn't replaced at once and the agency can use the newer equipment for the remainding life. Sources other than the incumbent have the propose all new as well which puts them at some disadavatge as des the training cost. Regarding "competitive advantage", I have met some s who believe they have a legal obligation to eliminate an incumbent's competitive advantage.
We have long recognized that a certain firm may enjoy a competitive advantage by its own incumbency. Aerospace Engineering Services, Corp. Furthermore, the government has no duty to equalize the position of competitors unless the competitive advantage results from a preference or unfair action by the government. John Morris Equipment and Supply, Co.
Is the "GPS engineering equipment" a commercial item? C The documentation in paragraph b 2 i of this sectionand the justification in paragraph c of this section is subject to the screening requirement in paragraph a 2 iii of this section. A Disclosure would compromise the national security e. The fact that access to classified matter may be necessary to submit a proposal or perform the contract does not, in itself, justify use of this exception;. B The nature of the file e.
If the justification and approval is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name, then it should so state; the approval level requirements will then only apply to that portion.
The justification shall cite that the acquisition is conducted under the authority of the Multiple-Award Schedule Program see 8. This authority is not delegable. A If a member of the armed forces, is a general or flag officer; or. B If a civilian, is serving in a position in a grade above GS under the General Schedule or in a comparable or higher position under another schedule ; or. This authority is not delegable, except in the case of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, acting as the senior procurement executive for the Department of Defense.
Parent topic: 8. This is a U. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution.
Skip to main content. Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council. Home Regulations FAR 8. My Favorites. Definitions Tool Toggle. Far Parts.
0コメント