SSJ Brand Name - Redacted.pdf

GUIDELINES FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Requirements personnel are responsible for providing and certifying as accurate and complete necessary data to support their recommendation for other than full and open competition. The justification must; 1) demonstrate that only one company can perform,

2) State clearly the Government’s requirements, and 3) Explain clearly why the contractor is the only company that can meet the Government’s requirement. The justification cannot be price based alone and incumbency does not justify other than full and open competition.

1. The following are examples of bases for other than full and open acquisitions:

a. The supplies or services to be acquired are unique to a supplier for which there is no comparable competitive product.

b. A component or replacement part for which there is no commercially available substitute, and which can be obtained only from the manufacturer and/or a manufacturer's distributor.

c. An item where compatibility is the overriding consideration, such as computer operating software enhancements for an existing system.

d. A supply, equipment, part, service or supplier that, due to technically constraining factors associated with scientific research, are needed to ensure the fairness and validity of the underlying research.

e. Repair/replacement parts for non competitive equipment.

f. Continuation of an existing contract when work is so closely related to that of the uncompleted basic contract that it would not be feasible to consider another potential contractor.

2. The two most often cited bases for other than full and open competition are uniqueness and timeframe. These are often confused and inappropriately interchanged.

a. If the contractor has a unique capability, whether it be an item or service, it is insufficient to simply say that the supplier is unique. If the item is unique to the supplier, the unique characteristics must be set forth. If the supplier has unique expertise, that expertise must be described. If the supplier has unique equipment or facilities or he/she has proprietary data, it must be explained.

b. If only one supplier can perform within the required timeframe, the timeframe must be explained. Administrative delay or lack of adequate advanced planning does not create an urgency that justifies other than full and open competition. It is not enough that timeliness is “of utmost importance,” as is often stated. The requestor must show that proceeding with a competitive process would cause the Government serious harm.

c. If the justification includes a timeliness reason, the requestor must give an explanation of why timeliness was not addressed through better planning, and what steps will be taken to try to prevent a non competitive process in the future.

i. Provide the date by which the supplies or services must be delivered.

ii. Indicate how that date was determined and its significance.

iii. Indicate the impact of delay beyond that date in terms of program schedules, milestones, etc.

iv. State how long it would take another contractor to acquire the capability to perform (learning period), how much it would cost another contractor to get up to speed, and if appropriate, what it would cost the Government in terms of dollars and man hours to get another contractor up to speed.

v. State the bases for the above estimates.

3. State how the decision to go sole source was reached, (i.e. technical personnel’s knowledge and experience, market research, etc.). The following are examples of documentation supporting this element:

a. Technical Personnel’s Knowledge:

vi. Explain requisition originator’s experience that would indicate that he/she knows that only one source can perform.

vii. Explain what technical publications, symposiums, or conferences clearly indicate that only one company can perform. List publications read and symposiums and conferences attended.

b. Market Research.

viii. State who conducted the survey.

ix. State when it was performed.

x. State what companies are in the industry, if feasible.

xi. State how the companies were contacted.

xii. State what questions were asked, and how the companies responded.

xiii. Name the companies that were contacted. Were all contractors in the relevant industry contacted? If not, why?

xiv. Provide each response from those companies surveyed.

xv. If any company stated that it could meet the requirements, give a justification for excluding that company, if it was not chosen.

xvi. State how it was determined that the contractor was the only one qualified.

xvii. State how requestor will plan better to ensure a full and competitive process the next time

4. In cases where an unsolicited proposal for R&D has been received, the justification limiting acquisition to a single source must verify that the proposal represents the product of original thinking by the submitting contractor and could not be obtained competitively without revealing the original thinking.