Bridge Contract | The Contracting Education Academy

May 23, 2018 By cs

CFC sustains protest of fifth — yes, fifth — sole-source bridge contract

Non-incumbent awardees who are defending their awards against a bid protest often view sole-source “bridge” contracts issued to the incumbent as something akin to death and taxes — an unpleasant, yet seemingly inescapable fact of life.

But a recent Court of Federal Claims (CFC) decision offers an important reminder that these types of contracts are not inviolate. They can be successfully protested themselves when the need to sole-source arises from a lack of advance planning on the part of the agency.

Global-Dynamics, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1875C, __ Fed. Cl. __, 2018 WL 2016151 (May 1, 2018) has a lengthy procedural history. The Army issued the solicitation in 2012 seeking registered nursing (RN) services for the San Antonio Military Healthcare System. Since then, the agency has made award to protester Global-Dynamics three times; disappointed offeror GiaMed (a joint venture of the incumbent MedTrust and another entity) has successfully protested three times; and the Army has awarded MedTrust five sole-source bridge contracts.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2018/05/a-bridge-too-far-court-of-federal-claims-sustains-protest-of-fifth-yes-fifth-sole-source-bridge-contract-awarded-to-incumbent-during-protracted-bid-protest-litigation/

May 3, 2018 By cs

Bridge contracts need better definition, more disclosure, says Senate report

A Senate report calls for establishing a common definition in the Federal Acquisition Regulation for bridge contracts and for a series of reports on how agencies use such contracts.

“When used too frequently, bridge contracts reduce competition and can result in the government paying more than it should for needed services and supplies,” the report says. “When a contract is awarded outside of the competitive process, such as when an incumbent contractor is granted a sole-source contract, heightened oversight is necessary to ensure the government is getting the best value.”

The report was filed in support of S-2413, which cleared the committee level in February; with the filing of the report, the measure could reach a floor vote at any time.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fedweek.com/federal-managers-daily-report/bridge-contracts-need-better-definition-more-disclosure-says-report/

Read Senate report 115-232 at: https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/srpt232/CRPT-115srpt232.pdf

August 7, 2017 By cs

Contract protests up, contract awards down — what to do?

Recent data indicates that protests have increased overall by approximately 17 percent since 2012, exceeded only by the decrease in government contract spending over that same time.

The resulting increase in pre-award costs derived from protests for all parties concerned requires a step back to analyze what is driving this not-so-encouraging trend, and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Most involved in government contracting today understand the recent trends of a declining overall market. Topping out at almost $600 billion a few years ago, the current federal budget has been squeezed by such things as the Budget Control Act of 2011, automatic budget sequestration, mandatory cuts, spending caps, and overall drawdown of U.S. military operations worldwide. Contractors are now competing for ever fewer dollars, as the government’s “mandatory” spending — in areas such as healthcare and retirement — continues to shrink the “discretionary” dollars available for everything else. This has resulted in many contractors leaving the federal market, either through mergers or simply going out of business, or diversifying into other business lines.

Keep reading this commentary at: http://www.federaltimes.com/opinions/2017/07/25/contract-protests-up-contract-awards-down-what-to-do-commentary/

March 15, 2016 By cs

Federal agencies are using last year’s ‘cyber sprint’ to justify sole-source IT contracts

Several federal agencies are not letting eligible companies compete for IT contracts, reasoning that only a current or other favored supplier can handle work demanded by a 30-day cybersecurity exercise.

But that exercise was supposed to have ended last July, and some of these so-called sole-source contracts issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Labor, among others, appear to strain, if not outright violate, federal contracting rules, according to procurement attorneys.

A keyword search through the government’s business opportunity website for “cyber” contracts posted July 30 or afterward turned up eight such noncompetitive deals. Because many contracts are not disclosed online or are published in unsearchable PDFs, the total number may be much higher, say federal acquisition experts.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2016/03/federal-agencies-are-using-last-summers-cyber-sprint-justify-sole-source-it-contracts/126528

February 10, 2016 By cs

GAO says Army needs training on how to exercise contract options

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report that finds contracting officials at the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal have improperly used the option to extend services clause by extending three of five contracts reviewed for periods longer than 6 months.

When included in a contract, the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s (FAR) option to extend services clause allows contracting officers to extend a contract more than once as long as the total extension does not exceed 6 months. However, the three contracts GAO identified were extended for periods between 10 and 12 months using contract modifications that cited the option to extend services clause. All three contracts were sole-source bridge contracts included as a part of GAO’s October 2015 review of bridge contracts. In that report, GAO found that multiple factors contributed to the use of bridge contracts, including those reviewed at the Army, such as an inexperienced and overwhelmed acquisition workforce.

Why GAO Did Its Study

The option to extend services clause provides a way for the government to continue to receive services for up to 6 months when, for example, the award of subsequent contracts might be delayed. When noncompetitive contracts are used frequently or for prolonged periods, the government is at risk of paying more than it should for goods and services. The same is true when the option to extend services clause is used for longer than permitted, thus delaying potential competition. In October 2015, GAO reported on federal agencies’ use of bridge contracts, which GAO defined as including extensions to an existing contract beyond the period of performance of a contract (including base and option years).

As a follow-up to its October 2015 report, GAO developed its latest report to address the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal’s use of the option to extend services clause on selected contracts, and to bring the issues GAO found to the command’s attention. For this report, GAO examined, for selected Army contracts, how the option to extend services clause was used to bridge a potential gap in services and the extent to which it was used in accordance with federal regulations.

To conduct this work, GAO relied on audit work completed as part of an October 2015 review of federal agencies’ use of bridge contracts. As part of that review, GAO selected 29 contracts, including 5 Army contracts awarded by the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal, for an in-depth review. To review the Army contracts, GAO collected and analyzed contract documentation and interviewed contracting and program officials. In addition, GAO reviewed FAR sections 37.111 and 17.208 (f), which provides for the use of FAR clause 52.217-8, the option to extend services, to better understand the rules related to the use of this clause, and compared the Army’s use of this clause on the selected contracts to the terms and limitations of the clause.

What GAO Is Recommending

GAO has recommended that the Executive Director of the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal provide training and, in a timely manner, issue a formal reminder to contracting officers on the appropriate use of the option to extend services clause, in particular the period of performance limitations prescribed by the FAR. The Department of Defense has concurred with GAO’s recommendation.

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-262R