This article is a case study that explores the issue of prototyping and pre-determination in the definition of requirements. The government’s challenge in soliciting a requirement is in meeting the FAR requirements for competition among possible sources or justifying the decision to limit competition. The process of determining the best course of action for such a procurement lies in the understanding of the salient characteristics of the required article, which shape the definition of the requirement. In my former life as a contracting specialist, I encountered a situation that highlights the significance of this situation and how the government must proceed in order to comply with regulations and statutes.
This case begins with a brigade commander in the Army’s 101st Airborne Division. This particular commander was a full Colonel, and he had envisioned a piece of equipment that would better serve his soldiers’ needs in combat during their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Essentially, this commander wanted to procure a nylon pouch of certain dimensions that could be attached to the battle harness each soldier wears. This pouch would hold the standard-issue IFAK (Individual First Aid Kit), as well as have enough space to carry an additional intravenous bag of saline. Evidently, in a previous deployment, the commander had witnessed several soldiers die of wounds sustained because they lost critical fluids while waiting for medical evacuation to a treatment facility.
The brigade commander assigned his logistics officer to work with a local tactical supply store to design and produce a prototype of the desired article. The young captain did so and in short order had a functional model to present to his boss. To follow through with the procurement, the commander and his staff prepared a request for funds from the Division HQs, and developed a sole-source justification to award the contract to the company that had developed the prototype. Included in the packet was the price proposal of approximately $40 per unit for 4,000 units, for a total amount of about $160,000. When I received the procurement request from the Division’s Resource Management office, I naturally had some issues with the overall process thus far.
First, had the government showed unfair preference to the prototyping company? Second, did the sole-source justification hold up to critical scrutiny? And third, was the proposed price fair and reasonable? I consulted the brigade staff, reviewed their documentation, and briefed them on the competition requirements as stated in the FAR. In short order, we determined that the prototype offeror did not enjoy a significant unfair advantage over other potential competitors, that the requirement did not justify a sole-source acquisition, and that market research would quickly show whether the price was fair and reasonable or not. The pouch design consisted of Cordura nylon, a few buckles, and typical dimensions of such articles that fit onto a battle harness. The salient characteristics of the pouch were common, easily reproduced and did not involve any proprietary information, material or design. Therefore, there was no reasonable justification for limiting competition – basically, anyone with a supply of camouflage nylon and a sewing machine could produce the article to specification.
We proceeded to prepare a solicitation, posted it on FedBizOpps, and received more than a dozen offers. In the technical evaluation, we found five or six of the offers to be responsive in terms of delivery schedule and meeting the design specifications. Of the technically acceptable offers, the lowest price came from a tactical supply company based in another state. Their unit price, including shipping, came to about $26, or a total of approximately $105,000. So we awarded the contract to this firm, and saved the government about $50,000. The commander and his soldiers got what they needed, the government saved money, and the free market provided the best solution at the lowest price. The prototyping firm was understandably disappointed to have lost out on the contract, but the post-award debrief explained the results of the source selection, and they recognized the reality of the situation.
In conclusion, this case highlights the issues involved in accurately defining the requirement according to the salient characteristics and then soliciting offers based on that accurate definition. Contracting professionals are obligated to understand these characteristics, so that the solicitation properly describes what is truly needed and that fair opportunities are presented to the marketplace.