On the face of it, such compatibility seems rational enough. The Guam drafters of this provision thought so, commenting "In the past, some problems have arisen due to the requirement for competitive bidding for equipment which should have been, but was not, compatible with existing equipment. The reason alleged was that the lowest bidder had to be chosen. Of course, the proper writing of specifications could have prevented the problem and Subsection (b) makes clear that compatibility may be a legitimate part of the specifications."
Fortunately, the provisions on specifications, in Article 4 of the procurement law, is not part of "this Section", so are not, on the face of the provision, restricted by it, and the provisions of Article 4 are replete with requirements for competition, saying nothing of compatibility. This become important when one stops to consider that compatibility is a substitute for legacy, old school technology and creative destruction.
Which brings me back to yet another Motorola case, this one decided by the federal GAO, related to Motorola's lock on the radio communications market. As always, read the cases and articles in the original, and don't rely on my creative destruction of them in my rendering.
Matter of: Harris IT Services Corporation B-411699; B-411796, October 2, 2015
Harris IT Services Corporation protests the terms of two requests for proposal issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to acquire land mobile radio (LMR) equipment through the issuance of a single delivery order under each RFP. Harris maintains that both of these RFPs improperly contemplate the issuance of a single, second-tier, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) instrument (labelled by the FBI as a delivery order), under which the agency will place subsequent delivery orders for this equipment without providing Harris a fair opportunity to compete for those orders, in violation of the statute authorizing the use of multiple-award IDIQ contracts. Harris also argues that the RFPs contemplate the issuance of orders that potentially exceed the scope of the underlying multiple-award IDIQ contract program, and include unduly restrictive specifications.
We sustain the protests.
Both solicitations have been issued under the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) tactical communications (TacCom) IDIQ multiple award contracts program and competition has been limited to concerns that previously have been awarded contracts under the DHS TacCom program. The underlying DHS TacCom multiple award IDIQ contract program solicitation contemplated the award of IDIQ contracts for a full array of communications equipment and services ("commodity products, infrastructure and services"). "DHS seeks to establish a multi-vendor approach to implementing fully interoperable solutions to support mission critical, public safety communications." In effect, the equipment to be purchased using the TacCom program is required to employ open systems architecture so that each contractor’s equipment will “interoperate” with equipment manufactured by other concerns.
The current RFPs represent the FBI’s second attempt to meet its requirements for the equipment being solicited. The first attempt sought the award of a sole-source contract for these requirements, and supported its solicitation with a justification and approval ("J&A"; aka "determination")) document maintaining that only one source--Motorola--was capable of meeting its requirements. After protests, this approach was abandoned.
This is the second attempt. RFP 68 is for the acquisition of “subscriber base radio” LMR equipment and is valued at approximately $200 million. RFP 81 is for the acquisition of infrastructure LMR equipment and is valued at approximately $135 million. Both RFPs contemplate the issuance of what the FBI characterizes as a single delivery order for a base year, with 4 one-year options.
The Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) provided agencies with express authority to award task and delivery order type contracts. Broadly speaking, the statutory and regulatory framework favors the award of multiple task or delivery order contracts for the same requirements, rather than the award of a single task or delivery order contract for an agency’s requirements.
The drafters of this federal law said the use of task order contracts for advisory and assistance services and establishing a requirement that solicitations for such contracts shall ordinarily provide for multiple awards and for fair consideration of each awardee for task orders issued under the contracts; indiscriminate use of task order contracts for broad categories of ill-defined services unnecessarily diminishes competition and results in the waste of taxpayer dollars; in many cases, this problem can effectively be addressed, without significantly burdening the procurement system, by awarding multiple task order contracts for the same or similar services and providing reasonable consideration to all such contractors in the award of such task orders under such contracts; and, all federal agencies should move to the use of multiple task order contracts, in lieu of single task order contracts, wherever it is practical to do so.
[Similarly, see Guam procurement regulations: 2 GAR 3122(b): A multiple award is an award of an indefinite quantity contract for one or more similar supplies or services to more than one bidder or offeror when the territory is obligated to order all of its actual requirements for the specified supplies or services from those contractors. A multiple award may be made when award to two or more bidders or offerors for similar products is necessary for adequate delivery, service, or product compatibility.]
The statutory and regulatory framework contemplates that, where an agency is issuing task or delivery orders using a multiple-award IDIQ contract program, it is not required to engage in full and open competition, and may instead confine its competition to firms that have been awarded an underlying multiple-award IDIQ contract. However, those same provisions require agencies to give each contractor that has been awarded a contract a “fair opportunity” to be considered for each task or delivery order in excess of $3,500, and to provide for “enhanced competition” for orders in excess of $5.5 million. Finally, each task or delivery order must specify all of the services to be performed or all the property to be delivered under the order.
Harris first argues that the RFPs impermissibly call for the issuance of what amounts to IDIQ instruments to the successful contractor for a 5-year period. The protester maintains that the RFPs effectively remove the agency’s requirements from further competition for an extended period and amount to an impermissible “downselect” to a single vendor. Harris maintains that this is inconsistent with the terms of the underlying TacCom contracts, as well as applicable statutes and regulations which, the protester maintains, require the FBI to permit all of the eligible TacCom vendors to compete for every delivery order that the FBI may issue to meet its requirements.
The FBI explains that it elected to take this approach to meet its ongoing and future, geographically diverse, requirements in the most streamlined manner possible. According to the agency, its approach will allow it to avoid individually having to compete potentially dozens of delivery orders for varying quantities of equipment over a 5-year period. According to the agency, the latter approach--competing potentially dozens of separate delivery orders--“would place an enormous administrative burden on the FBI.” Legal Memorandum at 5. The agency states that its approach will result in substantial savings of both time and money over the contemplated 5-year period of the delivery orders.
As set forth below [sorry: you're going to have to read the case decision], we conclude that the FBI’s solicitations contemplate the award of what, in effect, would amount to single, multi-year, second-tier IDIQ instruments that are not permitted under the requirements discussed above. The FBI’s contemplated award of a 5-year second-tier IDIQ instrument to a single contractor is inconsistent with the requirements of the applicable statutes and FAR provisions regarding what constitutes a “delivery order.” Those requirements are, at a minimum, that the delivery order be defined as to quantity, place of delivery and schedule.
[Compare Guam's definition of an "incremental" contract, which is distinct from the "multiple award" contract mentioned earlier, in 2 GAR 3122(a). An incremental award is an award of portions of a definite quantity requirement to more than one contractor. Each portion is for a definite quantity and the sum of the portions is the total definite quantity required. An incremental award may be used only when awards to more than one bidder or offeror for different amounts of the same item are necessary to obtain the total quantity or the required delivery. The right to make such an award and the criteria for award shall be stated in the solicitation. Thus, multiple awards, for indefinite quantities, and incremental awards, for definite quantities, are limited to cases where awards to more than one contractor are necessary to obtain the total quantity of the required delivery.]
In essence, the two orders contemplated under these RFPs will deprive all the other TacCom contractors of a fair opportunity to compete for each of the delivery orders that will be issued in the future, despite their aggregate value of approximately $335 million. We therefore sustain this aspect of Harris’s protest.
Harris also maintains that the RFPs impermissibly include a period of performance that exceeds the period of performance of the underlying TacCom contracts. In this connection the FBI’s RFPs contemplate the issuance of delivery orders until August 31, 2020 (whereas the TacCom contracts only allow for issuance of delivery orders until March 25, 2019), and contemplate fulfilling those delivery orders by August 31, 2021 (whereas the TacCom contracts contemplate fulfilling all delivery orders by May 25, 2021). The FBI notes in connection with this allegation that both RFPs incorporate the terms of the underlying TacCom IDIQ contracts and provide that, in the event of a conflict, the terms of the underlying TacCom contracts control. According to the agency, to the extent its RFPs specify a period of performance longer than that contemplated under the TacCom contracts, the terms of the TacCom contracts supersede the terms of its RFPs.
We agree with Harris that the RFPs seek impermissibly to increase the scope of the underlying TacCom contracts. As noted, the agency does not deny that its contemplated delivery schedules vary from, and increase the period of performance beyond, the terms of the underlying TacCom contracts. Rather, the FBI merely asserts that the terms of the TacCom contracts will supersede the inconsistent terms of its solicitations. However, the fact remains that the RFPs expressly contemplate a period of performance longer than the period of performance included in the TacCom contracts.
In addition, and more fundamentally (as discussed above), neither RFP includes a maximum quantity, but, rather, specifies only an estimated quantity. As we conclude above, there essentially is no limit on the quantities the agency could order under the second-tier IDIQ instruments contemplated by the RFPs. It follows that the agency could order quantities that exceed not only the estimated quantities specified in the RFPs, but also the maximum value of the underlying TacCom contracts. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the FBIs RFPs contemplate delivery orders that potentially are beyond the scope of the underlying TacCom contracts. We therefore sustain this aspect of Harris’s protest.
As a final matter, Harris’s protests that certain specifications are unduly restrictive and are designed to result in the award of the delivery orders to Motorola. Because we recommend below that the agency cancel the RFPs and consider alternatives to how it intends to meet its requirements, we need not consider these allegations in great detail. Nonetheless, we discuss several obvious solicitation requirements that even the agency concedes call for Motorola-specific products.
RFP 68 requires that all radios provided be compatible with a standards based radio system called “SmartNet.” In a similar vein, RFP 68 calls for providing radios that can be reprogrammed using “over-the-air-rekeying” when used with a “key variable loader.”
Harris maintains that these requirements are proprietary to Motorola and that, for all intents and purposes, they limit competition under RFP 68 to products made by Motorola. Harris also maintains that specifying such requirements is inconsistent with the overarching requirement of the TacCom contracts to provide equipment that is interoperable and that meets the P25 open architecture standards.
The agency does not challenge Harris’s fundamental assertion, but nonetheless maintains that these requirements are necessary in order for the radios that it acquires to meet the agency’s needs for data security, and in order for them to be useable with state and local law enforcement entities that still use legacy radio systems that depend on the Motorola-proprietary standards specified.
Where an agency seeks to issue a task or delivery order to acquire items peculiar to one manufacturer, it must execute a J&A in support of its specification for the task or delivery order, unless it has otherwise executed a J&A for other than full and open competition. Here, the agency concedes that it has specified Motorola-specific requirements. However, the record does not include the required J&A, and the agency has offered no explanation regarding its failure to execute such a J&A.
The agency previously attempted to meet its requirements on a sole-source basis, but concluded that the J&A prepared in connection with that acquisition was inadequate to support its attempted sole-source acquisition of Motorola products. Here, the agency again is attempting to acquire Motorola-specific products, but has not executed the required J&A, or even, for that matter, explained or demonstrated why it is not required to execute the J&A. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the RFPs include specifications for products that are specific to Motorola, and that the agency has failed to justify its inclusion of such requirements. We agree with Harris that the agency’s attempt to acquire Motorola-specific equipment appears fundamentally inconsistent with the underlying interoperability objective of the TacCom IDIQ contract program.
We recommend that the FBI cancel the solicitations.