Procedures consolidating foreign subsidiaries

On this record, we find no basis to sustain the protest. B-415812.2, B-415970, B-415970.2: May 7, 2018) The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires agencies to obtain full and open competition in their procurements through the use of competitive procedures. See Evaluating & Predicting Patient Safety for Medical Devices with Integral Information Technology, supra, at 324. The authors of the article specifically address the impact of device features and user interfaces (such as auditory cues and warnings, display messages, key information, physical controls, specific wording and labels, and sequence of tasks) on the incidence of human errors. See Tax Slayer LLC, B‑411101, May 8, 2015, 2015, CPD 156 at 8; Vinculum Solutions, Inc.--Recon., B‑408337.3, Dec. Notwithstanding the protesters objections, we find no basis to disregard the VAs reliance on this article, which affirms the agencys rationale for using identical equipment for the same clinical use and is entirely consistent with the agencys contemporaneous concerns in that regard. For example, with regard to operational differences between competitors models, the respondents variously answered: very different; all models would operate differently; no competing brand offers the same setting configuration or handpiece options; models are fundamentally different in both operation and patient outcomes; all brands operate differently; there is a significant difference in settings. When using noncompetitive procedures pursuant to 10 U. Indeed, the record supports the agencys use of many of the performance-based contracting concepts underlying FTI, including the benefits and efficiencies identified by the agency. 2304(f)(1); FAR 6.302-1; Signals & Sys., Inc., B-288107, Sept. Our review of the agencys decision to conduct a procurement under the exceptions to full and open competition focuses on the adequacy of the rationale and conclusions set forth in the J&A. Here, we conclude that CSS has not shown that the agencys brand name justification was unreasonable. Underlying this policy is the simple fact that under wartime conditions, the government must procure items quickly and urgently to meet compelling military needs. 2304(f)(1)(A), (B); FAR 6.302-1(d)(1), 6.302-2(c), 6.303, 6.304. SBGs CEO expressly acknowledged that SBG did not submit a SAR for the complete windshield kit due to SBGs uncertainty as to the elements comprising that kit. In this regard, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to conduct a procurement in which, among other things, procedures other than competitive procedures are used to award a contract to a particular source or sources from Iraq or Afghanistan. In this regard, as noted, under the act a source is from Iraq if it is located in Iraq (and offers products or services from Iraq). If this was the intent underlying the act, it easily could have been expressed by use of this term or other similar language. The article, which is based on a comparison of several infusion pumps from two different manufacturers, focuses on identifying usability problems that might be potential triggers for medical errors. The record shows that the VAMC was concerned that its medical staff should not have to transition among different APCs. See AR, Tab A, Market Research at 16, 18, 21, 29, 32-33, 35, 39. Our review of the record supports the reasonableness of the agency s determination, consistent with FAR 6.302-2(c), that urgent and compelling circumstances existed in terms of the costly deterioration of the turf at Florida National Cemetery and that the agency acted reasonably by limiting competition to four vendors that submitted quotes in response to the previously cancelled April 10 solicitation. Our decision should not be read to mean that we think the Air Force is required to implement FTI through a competitive contract award to a NAFI. Pegasus Global Strategic Solutions, LLC, B-400422.3, Mar. When the J&A sets forth reasonable justifications for the agencys actions, we will not object to award on the basis of other than full and open competition. The record indicates that the seals in question are critical ship equipment, the failure of which could have serious consequences for deployed military forces. In this regard, a military agencys assertion that there is a critical need that is related to human safety and affects military operations carries considerable weight. Jay Dee Militarywear, Inc., B-243437, July 31, 1991, 91-2 CPD 105 at 5. Our review of an agencys decision to conduct a noncompetitive procurement focuses on the adequacy of the rationale and conclusions set forth in the J&A; where the J&A sets forth a reasonable justification for the agencys actions, we will not object to the award. Based on our review of the record, we find no basis to question the sole-source award to Seaward. Although SBG initially sought to obtain the necessary information, through acquisition of a sample kit and reverse design engineering, SBG did not diligently pursue that information, waiting more than 5 months after being advised that a kit was available to actually obtain the kit. The agency interprets this language as referring only to Iraqi companies, and we agree with this interpretation.

Decisions as to which producers should be included in the mobilization base, and which restrictions are required to meet the needs of industrial mobilization, involve complex judgments that must be left to the discretion of the military agencies. Where the proposed order is over 0,000 but not over .5 million, the justification must be approved by the competition advocate of the activity placing the order. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Urgency Statement, at 2. 2304(e), an agency nonetheless may limit a procurement to the only firm it reasonably believes can properly perform the work in the time available. In this regard, the agency points out that Argon's contract with the Navy for Cerberus Tactical Long Range Systems, which Argon claims are a very close variant to the G‑BOSS Lite system, was terminated by the agency prior to the delivery or acceptance of any Cerberus units to agency. Nor do we agree with Argon that the urgency of the requirement that resulted in the sole-source award to ICx for 34 G‑BOSS Lite units was the result of a lack of advance procurement planning. The protester also argues that the J&A executed here is defective. The protester adds here that "[a]lthough the J&A was executed on the basis of urgency, it confirms . The protester concludes here that "[d]espite the purported urgency, the Navy has been taking its time." Supp. Section 6.303-2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation sets forth the required content of a J&A. However, where, as here, an agency uses non-competitive procedures under 10 U. DLA states that only recently has Ridgeline even sought to compete under solicitations for complete tent systems. In our view, Ridgeline has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency's explanation for limiting this award to Camel. CICA, however, provides several exceptions, including when an agency's requirements can only be satisfied by one responsible source. Comments at 2--it has not provided any specific reference to an actual customer for which it provided an ironer compatible with the existing Braun system. (Chicago Dryer Company, B-401888, December 8, 2009) (pdf)The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires that an agency obtain full and open competition in its procurements through the use of competitive procedures. While the overriding mandate of CICA is for full and open competition in government procurements, 41 U. On January 29, Trailboss filed its protest (B-415970) challenging the synopsis of the sole-source contract to PKL. The J&A states that responses from the three firms showed that transition could take 30-45 days, with an additional 14 days for employee clearance and badging requirements. The J&A also states that there would be additional cost associated with changing out contractors to include logistics, transportation, and security requirements for the phase-in of new contractor personnel. In this regard, the FAR states that an award based on other than full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of [a] lack of advance planning by the requiring activity. The protester contends that the agency has known of its requirements since 2008, the date of the award of the first of two sole-source contracts for these requirements, and therefore any short-term need arising from the expiration of the incumbent contract must reflect a lack of advance planning. Specifically, an immediate need for services that arises as a result of an agencys implementation of corrective action in response to a protest does not constitute a lack of advance planning. When using noncompetitive procedures pursuant to 10 U. As noted above, while the protester argues that FN's and H&K's IAR offerings are extremely similar and have [DELETED] percent parts interchangeability, the protester does not argue that FN's IAR is identical in form, fit, and function to the existing IAR. In addition, as set forth above, the agency's need for a single IAR is a fundamental foundation of the agency's sole-source justification, driving the agency's conclusion that if it were to change to a different IAR, it would need to re-procure at least the previously fielded 5,636 IARs at significant cost in order to field a single standard IAR. VHSS asserts that the agency has not presented scientifically reliable analyses or studies to support its assertion that standardizing its inventory of APCs is likely, or even necessary, to increase patient safety. One exception to this requirement for competition is if the head of the agency determines that it is necessary in the public interest to use other than competitive procedures in any particular procurement. Further, because use of a NAFI MOA is not an appropriate method for the Air Force to obtain mission essential food services from the AFMEFF and because the Air Force cannot rely on this non-procurement agreement as the basis to invoke the public interest exception under CICA, the agency failed to properly implement our recommendation. Because it is clear that the transaction established under the NAFI MOA is for the primary benefit of the Air Force in its performance of its essential mission (i.e., mission essential feeding), we do not view incidental benefits provided to the MWR system to authorize use of section 2492. KLG argues that it should have been permitted to compete under the RFP. Accordingly, Brinkmann contends that the Navy is required to compete the autotitrator requirement. 3301(a)(1), CICA does permit noncompetitive acquisitions in specified circumstances, such as when the services needed are available from only one responsible source. Our Office dismissed the pending protest (B‑415812) on January 25, 2018, based on the agencys notice of corrective action. Based on the transition requirements, additional costs, and the time needed to conduct a competitive procurement, the agency concluded that only PKL was capable of meeting the agencys requirements for continued services: Due to the highly specialized services required under this contract, discontinued use would result in substantial duplication of cost to the government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and will result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agencys requirements. Trailboss argues that the sole-source award was improper because it reflects a lack of advance planning by the agency. 2304(c)(1), such as here, agencies must execute a written J&A with sufficient facts and rationale to support the use of the cited authority. Specifically, we note that CICA and the FAR do not contemplate that an agency may only find supplies to be available from one responsible source in the specific circumstances identified in sub-subparagraphs 6.302-1(a)(2)(i)-(iii). Brinkmann Instruments, Inc., B-309946, B-309946.2, Oct. Here, there is no question that the item to be procured is key to the Marine Corps' combat mission and to personnel safety, and that the agency has expended significant resources on testing, training, and initial fielding of a single standard IAR. As a result, we find that the agency reasonably concluded that EBSCOs product will not meet the agencys requirement, and that EBSCO has provided our Office no basis to object to this sole-source award. B-414150: Mar 2, 2017) VHSS contends that the VA has no rational basis for procuring this type of medical equipment on a sole‑source or brand name basis, and claims that VHSS can provide a comparable APC (manufactured by USMI) that will meet the VAMCs needs at a much lower price. We have considered the agencys arguments in support of its interpretation of section 2492, and, as set forth below, we remain convinced that the agencys interpretation of this statutory authority is inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of the statute. As we explained in our prior decision, the Air Forces interpretation of section 2492 would constitute a radical departure from the general understanding that MWR NAFIs engage in MWR-related activities, and it is with consideration of the above historical, statutory, and regulatory framework that we reach our conclusion regarding the scope of the statute. When the J&A sets forth reasonable justifications for the agencys actions, we will not object to the award. (Eisenhower Real Estate Holdings, LLC, B-310941, March 18, 2008) (pdf) Brinkmann objects to the proposed sole-source award to Mettler principally on the ground that its own autotitrator, the Metohm 809 Titrando, which it claims is less expensive than the Mettler autotitrator, is also technically and functionally equivalent or superior to the Mettler unit. We find that Phoenix s challenge provides an insufficient basis to sustain its protest. In our view, the agency s actions reasonably satisfied the requirement of FAR 6.302-2(c) to solicit as many potential sources as practical under the circumstances to meet its urgent requirements. B-411678: Sep 28, 2015) (pdf) The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) permits an agency to use other than competitive procedures in acquiring goods or services where the agencys requirement is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits proposals. Nor do we find merit in the protesters view that a lack of advance planning resulted in the delay associated with Ocean Services successful protest to our Office. Jay Dee Militarywear, Inc., B-243437, July 31, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. An agency need not risk injury to personnel or property in order to conduct a competitive acquisition. As an initial matter, there is no basis on which to question the agency's position that there is a critical and immediate need for additional G‑BOSS Lite units to be used by USMC personnel in Operation Enduring Freedom, and that this need is related to human safety and affects military operations. In fact, the protester states that it used OEM parts in its past contracts for these pumps. In response, Gould stated that its authorized repair facilities will willingly sell replacement OEM parts to non‑authorized facilities. Finally, the Coast Guard argues that only work completed at a Gould authorized repair facility can receive a warranty from Gould.[4] Legal Memorandum, at 3. We see nothing about the warranty requirements here that justifies restricting this competition to Gould authorized repair facilities. 111 (procurement of particular radar system on sole-source basis was reasonable where record established need for same system used in training program). As a general matter, an agency may use other than competitive procedures to procure goods or services where its needs are of such an usual and compelling urgency that the government would be seriously injured if the agency is not permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits proposals. Finally, we cannot find that the delays associated with the successive rounds of discussions in order to allow the small business offerors opportunities to correct errors in their proposed pricing, or to propose pricing that the agency could determine fair and reasonable and permit an award under RFP 10-2501, to be the result of a lack of advance planning. (Camden Shipping Corporation, B-406171, B-406323, Feb 27, 2012) (pdf)The protester principally asserts that it has less work than Camel and that, accordingly, it also should have been considered for the award of a mobilization base sole-source contract, especially in view of the fact that this is the second such sole-source contract award that recently has been made to Camel. The record reflects, and the protester does not dispute, that at this time the agency does not have a technical data package for the G‑BOSS Lite that could be made available to Argon or any other firm for the manufacture of that system. In this regard, we note that the RFQ requires vendors to provide a standard commercial warranty at no additional cost. Missouri Machinery states that it warrants its service work in accordance with the warranty terms in the RFQ, and in the same way that a Gould authorized repair facility warrants this work. In short, none of the reasons set forth by the Coast Guard in the J&A justify the agency's decision to limit this competition to Gould authorized repair facilities. In this regard, we have recognized that an agency's legitimate need to standardize the equipment it uses may provide a reasonable basis for imposing restrictions on competition. Here, the protester does not challenge the agency's stated requirements for interoperability with installed Braun equipment at VAMC Canandaigua but, rather, asserts that it can supply equipment meeting those requirements. 159 at 7 (protest against sole-source acquisition denied where protester did not meet its burden of demonstrating that it could perform contract without access to source code and without violating licensing agreement). There are various exceptions to this requirement, including a situation where only one responsible source is able to meet the agencys requirements.

Leave a Reply