Skip to main content

Procurement: Better Compliance With the Competition in Contracting Act Is Needed

NSIAD-87-145 Published: Aug 26, 1987. Publicly Released: Oct 01, 1987.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed selected federal agencies' procurement practices to determine whether they complied with the provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA).

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Defense The Secretaries of Defense and Energy, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), should take actions to ensure that all personnel involved in awarding contracts of more than $25,000 understand and comply with the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to written justifications for decisions not to provide for full and open competition. Such compliance should include: (1) demonstrating that use of any exception to full and open competition cited is appropriate; (2) properly preparing and certifying the justifications so that they include all the required elements; (3) preparing the justifications after the market survey efforts have been completed and their results considered; and (4) properly approving them.
Closed – Implemented
The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation and explained that it is continuing to revise and improve acquisition training courses to improve the overall professionalism of contracting personnel.
Department of Energy The Secretaries of Defense and Energy, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), should take actions to ensure that all personnel involved in awarding contracts of more than $25,000 understand and comply with the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to written justifications for decisions not to provide for full and open competition. Such compliance should include: (1) demonstrating that use of any exception to full and open competition cited is appropriate; (2) properly preparing and certifying the justifications so that they include all the required elements; (3) preparing the justifications after the market survey efforts have been completed and their results considered; and (4) properly approving them.
Closed – Implemented
The Department of Energy (DOE) fully agreed with this recommendation and explained that it has emphasized and will continue to emphasize and promote the competition requirements of CICA and FAR.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretaries of Defense and Energy, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), should take actions to ensure that all personnel involved in awarding contracts of more than $25,000 understand and comply with the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to written justifications for decisions not to provide for full and open competition. Such compliance should include: (1) demonstrating that use of any exception to full and open competition cited is appropriate; (2) properly preparing and certifying the justifications so that they include all the required elements; (3) preparing the justifications after the market survey efforts have been completed and their results considered; and (4) properly approving them.
Closed – Implemented
NASA explained that it has conducted numerous training sessions for its procurement personnel on implementation of CICA. NASA also explained that final approval of J&A is not granted until the market has been completed and considered.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) should amend FAR 6.302-2(c) to provide that justifications for contract awards, based on the second exception to full and open competition, shall be prepared and approved no later than 30 days after the date of contract award if the current FAR criteria for preparation and approval after award are met.
Closed – Implemented
FAR Case 89-84 was approved and stated that J&A, based on the urgency exception, shall be prepared and approved within a reasonable period of time.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) should amend FAR 6.302-2(c) to provide that justifications for contract awards, based on the second exception to full and open competition, shall be prepared and approved no later than 30 days after the date of contract award if the current FAR criteria for preparation and approval after award are met.
Closed – Implemented
FAR Case 89-84 was approved and stated that J&A, based on the urgency exception, shall be prepared and approved within a reasonable period of time.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) should amend FAR 6.302-2(c) to provide that justifications for contract awards, based on the second exception to full and open competition, shall be prepared and approved no later than 30 days after the date of contract award if the current FAR criteria for preparation and approval after award are met.
Closed – Implemented
FAR Case 89-84 was approved and stated that J&A, based on the urgency exception, shall be prepared and approved within a reasonable period of time.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) should amend FAR 6.302-2(c) to provide that justifications for contract awards, based on the second exception to full and open competition, shall be prepared and approved no later than 30 days after the date of contract award if the current FAR criteria for preparation and approval after award are met.
Closed – Implemented
FAR Case 89-84 was approved and stated that J&A, based on the urgency exception, shall be prepared and approved within a reasonable period of time.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude any required CBD notices of proposed awards, regardless of whether or not the award is expected to be based on full and open competition, from: (1) referring to numbered notes 40, 41, 46, or footnote symbol *; or (2) otherwise including wording that conflicts with statutory requirements or unnecessarily discourages responses from offerors.
Closed – Implemented
Numbered notes 40, 41, 46, and footnote symbol * were deleted from use in CBD.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude any required CBD notices of proposed awards, regardless of whether or not the award is expected to be based on full and open competition, from: (1) referring to numbered notes 40, 41, 46, or footnote symbol *; or (2) otherwise including wording that conflicts with statutory requirements or unnecessarily discourages responses from offerors.
Closed – Implemented
OFPP agreed that the objectionable notes and symbol should be deleted. OFPP stated, however, that FAR did not need to be revised to accomplish this.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude any required CBD notices of proposed awards, regardless of whether or not the award is expected to be based on full and open competition, from: (1) referring to numbered notes 40, 41, 46, or footnote symbol *; or (2) otherwise including wording that conflicts with statutory requirements or unnecessarily discourages responses from offerors.
Closed – Implemented
GSA agreed that these and other numbered notes are obsolete and require revision. DAR Case 86-145 and CAAC Case 86-11 were approved on March 6, 1989, and deleted these and other notes from CBD.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude any required CBD notices of proposed awards, regardless of whether or not the award is expected to be based on full and open competition, from: (1) referring to numbered notes 40, 41, 46, or footnote symbol *; or (2) otherwise including wording that conflicts with statutory requirements or unnecessarily discourages responses from offerors.
Closed – Implemented
NASA explained that Commerce dropped the objectionable notes and symbol from use in CBD. NASA added that its personnel are being trained to draft notices which encourage competition.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to improve the wording of CBD numbered note 22 so it indicates that: (1) an award is expected to be based on other than full and open competition, unless the market survey results show that the use of full and open competition is appropriate; (2) all interested sources may submit a response; (3) this market survey effort is intended to find out whether any additional sources are available that are capable of satisfying the government's needs, verify that no other types of supplies or services are available that can satisfy those needs, and help identify potential sources for future requirements, if applicable; and (4) if a competitive procurement is held, competitive solicitations will be sent to all sources that have demonstrated they are capable of satisfying the government's needs.
Closed – Not Implemented
A FAR case was opened and it was decided that note 22 wording was acceptable.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to improve the wording of CBD numbered note 22 so it indicates that: (1) an award is expected to be based on other than full and open competition, unless the market survey results show that the use of full and open competition is appropriate; (2) all interested sources may submit a response; (3) this market survey effort is intended to find out whether any additional sources are available that are capable of satisfying the government's needs, verify that no other types of supplies or services are available that can satisfy those needs, and help identify potential sources for future requirements, if applicable; and (4) if a competitive procurement is held, competitive solicitations will be sent to all sources that have demonstrated they are capable of satisfying the government's needs.
Closed – Not Implemented
OFPP agreed with this recommendation. However, in a current FAR case, it was decided that note 22 wording was acceptable.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to improve the wording of CBD numbered note 22 so it indicates that: (1) an award is expected to be based on other than full and open competition, unless the market survey results show that the use of full and open competition is appropriate; (2) all interested sources may submit a response; (3) this market survey effort is intended to find out whether any additional sources are available that are capable of satisfying the government's needs, verify that no other types of supplies or services are available that can satisfy those needs, and help identify potential sources for future requirements, if applicable; and (4) if a competitive procurement is held, competitive solicitations will be sent to all sources that have demonstrated they are capable of satisfying the government's needs.
Closed – Not Implemented
FAR is developing a case to revise note 22 reflecting this recommendation.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to improve the wording of CBD numbered note 22 so it indicates that: (1) an award is expected to be based on other than full and open competition, unless the market survey results show that the use of full and open competition is appropriate; (2) all interested sources may submit a response; (3) this market survey effort is intended to find out whether any additional sources are available that are capable of satisfying the government's needs, verify that no other types of supplies or services are available that can satisfy those needs, and help identify potential sources for future requirements, if applicable; and (4) if a competitive procurement is held, competitive solicitations will be sent to all sources that have demonstrated they are capable of satisfying the government's needs.
Closed – Not Implemented
NASA disagreed with this recommendation, and the other executive agencies, and stated that the wording of numbered note 22 was acceptable to NASA.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, for written justifications based on the first exception to full and open competition, contracting officers may not certify, and approving officials may not sign, a required justification until: (1) any required notice of proposed award has been published in the appropriate section of CBD and, whenever feasible, a copy of the actual published notice demonstrating this fact has been attached to the justification; (2) the contents of all CBD footnotes referred to in the notice have been disclosed as part of the justification; (3) information has been provided showing that the requirements of FAR 5.203 have been met; and (4) the results of all market survey efforts made have been considered and described in the justification.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD disagreed with this recommendation and stated that requiring synopsis before J&A approval could jeopardize streamlining actions and create increased administrative lead time. The DOD response did not address the proposed FAR change, stating that there is no FAR requirement to include the results of the synopsis in J&A.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, for written justifications based on the first exception to full and open competition, contracting officers may not certify, and approving officials may not sign, a required justification until: (1) any required notice of proposed award has been published in the appropriate section of CBD and, whenever feasible, a copy of the actual published notice demonstrating this fact has been attached to the justification; (2) the contents of all CBD footnotes referred to in the notice have been disclosed as part of the justification; (3) information has been provided showing that the requirements of FAR 5.203 have been met; and (4) the results of all market survey efforts made have been considered and described in the justification.
Closed – Implemented
OFPP agreed that J&A should not be signed until after market research has been completed, and that, when possible, a copy of the CBD notice should be attached to J&A. OFPP saw no need to include numbered notes in J&A.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, for written justifications based on the first exception to full and open competition, contracting officers may not certify, and approving officials may not sign, a required justification until: (1) any required notice of proposed award has been published in the appropriate section of CBD and, whenever feasible, a copy of the actual published notice demonstrating this fact has been attached to the justification; (2) the contents of all CBD footnotes referred to in the notice have been disclosed as part of the justification; (3) information has been provided showing that the requirements of FAR 5.203 have been met; and (4) the results of all market survey efforts made have been considered and described in the justification.
Closed – Not Implemented
GSA disagreed with this recommendation, and cited the administrative burden to the contracting officer and minimal benefit.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, for written justifications based on the first exception to full and open competition, contracting officers may not certify, and approving officials may not sign, a required justification until: (1) any required notice of proposed award has been published in the appropriate section of CBD and, whenever feasible, a copy of the actual published notice demonstrating this fact has been attached to the justification; (2) the contents of all CBD footnotes referred to in the notice have been disclosed as part of the justification; (3) information has been provided showing that the requirements of FAR 5.203 have been met; and (4) the results of all market survey efforts made have been considered and described in the justification.
Closed – Implemented
NASA agreed with the thrust of this recommendation, but did not believe that a FAR change was necessary. NASA emphasized its oversight efforts in this area.
Department of Commerce The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should take action in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the wording of CBD notices and related footnotes complies with FAR and CICA.
Closed – Implemented
Commerce fully concurred with this recommendation. Commerce eliminated four numbered notes/symbols which conflicted with FAR and CICA.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should take action in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the wording of CBD notices and related footnotes complies with FAR and CICA.
Closed – Implemented
DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Department of Commerce has initiated an effort to review the CBD process, and that DOD will contribute to this effort. Commerce deleted footnotes which conflicted with CICA and FAR.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should take action in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the wording of CBD notices and related footnotes complies with FAR and CICA.
Closed – Implemented
OFPP agreed with this recommendation and noted that it would coordinate with Commerce and the current FAR case on revising numbered notes. Commerce deleted footnotes which conflicted with CICA and FAR.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should take action in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the wording of CBD notices and related footnotes complies with FAR and CICA.
Closed – Implemented
GSA agreed with this recommendation and noted that DAR Case 87-63/CAAC Case 87-29 is underway to improve the format, quality, and transmission of CBD synopses. Commerce deleted footnotes which conflicted with CICA and FAR.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should take action in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the wording of CBD notices and related footnotes complies with FAR and CICA.
Closed – Implemented
NASA agreed with this recommendation, and Commerce deleted notes conflicting with CICA and FAR. NASA added that it assumes responsibility, however, for ensuring that its CBD notices comply with CICA and FAR.
Department of Defense The Secretaries of Defense and Energy and the Administrator, NASA, should take actions, such as those involving formal or informal training, written instruction, better supervision, and other improved management controls, to ensure that all personnel involved in awarding contracts of more than $25,000 understand and comply with the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to use of CBD.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD disagreed that additional training and management controls, among other things, are needed. DOD added, however, that it would continue to provide procurement management review efforts.
Department of Energy The Secretaries of Defense and Energy and the Administrator, NASA, should take actions, such as those involving formal or informal training, written instruction, better supervision, and other improved management controls, to ensure that all personnel involved in awarding contracts of more than $25,000 understand and comply with the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to use of CBD.
Closed – Implemented
DOE fully agreed with this recommendation and explained that it already has taken, and will continue to take, steps to emphasize the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to competition and use of CBD.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretaries of Defense and Energy and the Administrator, NASA, should take actions, such as those involving formal or informal training, written instruction, better supervision, and other improved management controls, to ensure that all personnel involved in awarding contracts of more than $25,000 understand and comply with the requirements of CICA and FAR relating to use of CBD.
Closed – Implemented
NASA agreed with this recommendation and noted that CICA implementation training and other procurement courses emphasize compliance with CICA and FAR regarding use of CBD.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that restricting a solicitation to a specific make and model: (1) does not meet the requirement for full and open competition; and (2) requires written justification, certification, and approval for other than full and open competition, in accordance with CICA.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD disagreed and did not directly address the recommendation, stating that specific make and model procurements, when reprocurement drawings are available, may result in competition. DOD added that specific make and model purchases for ADP equipment must have a justification, according to DFARS.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that restricting a solicitation to a specific make and model: (1) does not meet the requirement for full and open competition; and (2) requires written justification, certification, and approval for other than full and open competition, in accordance with CICA.
Closed – Not Implemented
OFPP disagreed with this recommendation; however, it noted that restricting a solicitation to a specific make and model should not be applied on a wider basis than is necessary.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that restricting a solicitation to a specific make and model: (1) does not meet the requirement for full and open competition; and (2) requires written justification, certification, and approval for other than full and open competition, in accordance with CICA.
Closed – Not Implemented
GSA stated that, since DOD and NASA are in disagreement with this recommendation, no FAR case will be opened.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that restricting a solicitation to a specific make and model: (1) does not meet the requirement for full and open competition; and (2) requires written justification, certification, and approval for other than full and open competition, in accordance with CICA.
Closed – Not Implemented
NASA stated, similar to GSA, that DARC should consider the need for a FAR change based on this recommendation. However, DOD disagreed with this recommendation.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, if a proposed procurement for a specific make and model is justified, certified, and approved as other than full and open competition, offers are required to be solicited from as many other sources, such as dealers, licensees, and sellers of used equipment, as is practicable in the circumstances.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD disagreed with this recommendation and stated that offers must already be solicited from as many sources as possible. DOD does not intend to label or justify specific make and model procurements as being based on other than full and open competition.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, if a proposed procurement for a specific make and model is justified, certified, and approved as other than full and open competition, offers are required to be solicited from as many other sources, such as dealers, licensees, and sellers of used equipment, as is practicable in the circumstances.
Closed – Not Implemented
OFPP did not directly address this recommendation in its response, but noted that use of specific make and model solicitations should be used only as necessary.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, if a proposed procurement for a specific make and model is justified, certified, and approved as other than full and open competition, offers are required to be solicited from as many other sources, such as dealers, licensees, and sellers of used equipment, as is practicable in the circumstances.
Closed – Not Implemented
GSA indicated that current FAR coverage was sufficient.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to state that, if a proposed procurement for a specific make and model is justified, certified, and approved as other than full and open competition, offers are required to be solicited from as many other sources, such as dealers, licensees, and sellers of used equipment, as is practicable in the circumstances.
Closed – Not Implemented
NASA did not believe a FAR revision is necessary, and noted that FAR requires competition to the maximum extent practical for all procurements.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude limiting the solicitation to a particular product of one manufacturer and alternate products meeting the agency's requirement under procedures providing for full and open competition, unless the solicitation describes the essential features of the agency's requirement so that potential offerers of alternate products may know what is acceptable to the agency.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD disagreed and did not address this recommendation. Instead, DOD stated that performance or design specifications provide the essential features of the agency's requirements.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude limiting the solicitation to a particular product of one manufacturer and alternate products meeting the agency's requirement under procedures providing for full and open competition, unless the solicitation describes the essential features of the agency's requirement so that potential offerers of alternate products may know what is acceptable to the agency.
Closed – Not Implemented
OFPP disagreed with this recommendation and stated that current FAR coverage is adequate.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude limiting the solicitation to a particular product of one manufacturer and alternate products meeting the agency's requirement under procedures providing for full and open competition, unless the solicitation describes the essential features of the agency's requirement so that potential offerers of alternate products may know what is acceptable to the agency.
Closed – Not Implemented
GSA stated that current FAR coverage is adequate.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should revise FAR to preclude limiting the solicitation to a particular product of one manufacturer and alternate products meeting the agency's requirement under procedures providing for full and open competition, unless the solicitation describes the essential features of the agency's requirement so that potential offerers of alternate products may know what is acceptable to the agency.
Closed – Not Implemented
NASA stated that current FAR coverage is adequate, and that NASA procurements routinely describe the salient characteristics.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should amend FAR subpart 6.5 to better inform agency officials regarding the duties and responsibilities, such as those closely related to the award of contracts, which should not be performed by competition advocacy staff because they are inconsistent with those CICA has assigned to the competition advocates.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD disagreed with this recommendation and stated that current FAR coverage is adequate.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should amend FAR subpart 6.5 to better inform agency officials regarding the duties and responsibilities, such as those closely related to the award of contracts, which should not be performed by competition advocacy staff because they are inconsistent with those CICA has assigned to the competition advocates.
Closed – Not Implemented
OFPP believes that current FAR coverage is adequate, and that individual agency management should decide on staffing duties/responsibilities of competition advocates.
General Services Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should amend FAR subpart 6.5 to better inform agency officials regarding the duties and responsibilities, such as those closely related to the award of contracts, which should not be performed by competition advocacy staff because they are inconsistent with those CICA has assigned to the competition advocates.
Closed – Not Implemented
GSA stated that a FAR change was unnecessary, and that individual agencies must decide on which duties/responsibilities are inconsistent for competition advocates.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Secretary of Defense and the Administrators of General Services, NASA, and OFPP should amend FAR subpart 6.5 to better inform agency officials regarding the duties and responsibilities, such as those closely related to the award of contracts, which should not be performed by competition advocacy staff because they are inconsistent with those CICA has assigned to the competition advocates.
Closed – Not Implemented
NASA believes that current FAR coverage is adequate, and that no revision is necessary.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Competitive procurementFederal agenciesFederal regulationsProcurement practicesProcurement regulationsSole source procurementProcurementMilitary forcesSmall businessAviation