Labels and Tags

Accountability (66) Adequate documentation (5) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (14) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (28) Competitive position (2) Compliance (32) Conflict of interest (28) Contract administration (24) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (1) Contractor responsibility (18) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (32) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (34) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (35) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (13) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (6) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (28) Mistakes (3) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (31) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (46) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (88) Principles of procurement (21) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (75) Procurement ethics (17) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (15) Procurement procedures (29) Procurement reform (57) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (1) Protest - timing (10) Protests - general (35) Purposes and policies of procurement (9) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (3) Responsiveness (11) Restrictive specifications (4) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (46) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (1) Standards of review (2) Standing (5) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (9) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (59) Uniformity (5) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Another reason for competition


Encouraging competition amongst supply and service providers is at the core of most procurement regimes around the world. The usual justification for that is to assist the government to get the lowest price it can. It is a cornerstone of traditional economics that open competition tends to bring prices down for the consumer towards the level of cost of production.


Many of the strictures of procurement regimes, including fair procurement processes, are intended to encourage competition, apart from any notions of due process rights, because businesses tend to be deterred from competing in rigged contests.

The US Department of Defense recently issued an Interim Rule which notes an additional reason to insist on competition: it tends to encourage best performance by the contractors.

The new rule is made to implement the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Section 202, Acquisition Strategies to Ensure Competition throughout the Lifecycle of Major Defense Acquisition Programs.

Its DFARS Case 2009-D014 states the rule is being adopted in part,
to ensure that the acquisition strategy for each MDAP includes: (1) Measures to
ensure competition at both the prime contract and subcontract level of
the MDAP throughout its life cycle as a means to improve contractor performance

The Interim Rule goes beyond that, specifying other requirements and measures intended to enhance competition amongst bidders for DOD weapons systems work.

More on that here: Interim Rule to Increase Competition in Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Impact DoD Acquisition Strategies for Technical Data Packages

//

No comments: