In the acquisition reform efforts of the 1980s and 1990s, the US government enacted some sweeping legislation that redefined government procurement, instilled a renewed discipline and standardization, and laid the foundation for the policies and procedures that acquisition professionals operate under today. One of the most critical aspects of this reform was the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. This act aimed to encourage competition in the award of all types of government contracts in order to increase savings through lower, competitive pricing. Basically, it is a commitment to let the free market work in helping the government find the best solution at the most effective price. Note: this is often the lowest price, but the statute and subsequent regulations do allow for trade-offs in price in order to achieve the best value.
Before this landmark legislation, competition for government contracts was not necessarily required, let alone desired. For a variety of reasons, be they corruption, graft, or convenience, government contracting officers were not automatically compelled to seek competitive bids for their procurements. Naturally, this latitude resulted in many embarrassing cases of acquisition malfeasance, ranging from simple laziness to outright fraud. Essentially, CICA sharply curtailed the free-wheeling practices of sole-source, no bid contracts that favored certain vendors over others, usually with political implications. While sole-source contracts remain a viable procurement practice today, CICA and related legislation codified the requirement to justify such actions, with increasing scrutiny and disapproval.
CICA underscores the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 6.1, Full and Open Competition, which states “Contracting officers shall provide for full and open competition through use of the competitive procedure(s) contained in this subpart that are best suited to the circumstances of the contract action and consistent with the need to fulfill the Government’s requirements efficiently,” (FAR 6.101(b)). The competitive procedures mentioned are sealed bidding and competitive proposals, also known as negotiation. Specific procedural requirements include synopsizing the requirement on FedBizOpps.gov, or FBO, for at least 15 days before issuing a solicitation, and leaving the solicitation open for at least 30 days. These requirements for publicization of contracting opportunities are intended to increase the number of bidders.
CICA further enhances competition by making it a requirement for government buyers, and provides a limited number of narrow exceptions to the mandate. FAR Subpart 6.302 – Circumstances Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition, lists these few exceptions, including Only One Responsible Source, and Unusual and Compelling Urgency. Furthermore, the Agency head must approve such deviations, and the case must be documented extensively with several levels of review. This stringency results agencies rarely attempting to limit competition. In addition, CICA places on agency procurement officials is that they must establish a “competition advocate” responsible for reviewing all procurements, and challenging any request to limit competition. Moreover, Congress instituted legislative review of the implementation of CICA, establishing a Senate subcommittee to ensure full and fair application.
This broad, impactful legislation has framed government procurements for more than 30 years, and has been a huge factor in the economic development of the United States since its inception. Instead of awarding contracts arbitrarily, or unfairly, this law and its implementing regulations force government contracting officers to seek maximum practicable competition, and forcefully justifying any exception to that rule.