W91rus14t0286 Gao Level Protest Against Fedbid Discrimination of Veteran Owned Small Business

SENDINGFEDBIDTOTHEGAO
Discrimination On the Marketplace

Agenciesthatweknowanddonttrusttonot
ViolatetheCompetitioninContractingAct
ViolatetheSmallBusinessAct
ContractingOfficersdiscriminatingagainstSmall
BusinessesacrosstheworldbyusingFEDBID
Andbelievingtheywillgetawaywithit
W91RUS14T0286
GAOLEVELPROTEST
U.S.ARMY
APG - Huachuca Installation
HERES HOW
7/25/2014
71--FURNITURE - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities
Buyers: Login | Register
Vendors: Login | Register
Accessibility
71--FURNITURE
Solicitation Num ber: W91RUS14T0286

Agency: Department of the Army
Office: FedBid
Location: FedBid.com -- for Department of Army procurements only
Notice Details
Packages
Print
Interested Vendors List
Link
GENERAL INFORMATION
Com plete View

Original Synopsis
Combined
Synopsis/Solicitation
Jul 23, 2014
5:16 pm
Changed
Jul 25, 2014
11:51 am
Return To Opportunities List
Watch This Opportunity
Add Me To Interested Vendors
Notice Type:
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
Original Posted Date:
July 23, 2014
Solicitation Number:
W91RUS14T0286
Notice Type:
Synopsis:
Added: Jul 23, 2014 5:16 pm Modified: Jul 25, 2014 11:51 am Track
Changes
AMENDMENT NOTICE:This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for
commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR
Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in
this notice.The solicitation number is W91RUS14T0286 and is issued
as an invitation for bids (IFB), unless otherwise indicated herein.The
solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are
those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular FAC 2005-75. The
associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
code for this procurement is 337127 with a small business size
standard of 500.00 employees.This requirement is unrestricted and only
qualified offerors may submit bids.The solicitation pricing on
www.FedBid.com will start on the date this solicitation is posted and will
end on 2014-07-31 12:00:00.0 Eastern Time or as otherwise displayed
at www.FedBid.com.FOB Destination shall be in the Special Shipping
Instructions.
Posted Date:
July 25, 2014
Response Date:
July 31, 2014
Original Response Date:
July 31, 2014
Archiving Policy:
Automatic, on specified date
Original Archive Date:
January 27, 2015
Archive Date:
January 27, 2015
Original Set Aside:
N/A
Set Aside:
N/A
Classification Code:
71 -- Furniture
The APG - Huachuca Installation requires the following items, Purchase

Description Determined by Line Item, to the following:
LI 001: CHAIR, ITEM# 53815 FFP CHAIR, ITEM# 53815 1 CHAIR ITEM#
53815, FABRIC EBONY, FRAME MAHOGANY W/2" THICK SEAT,
STANDARD SIZE OF 22" WIDE. FOB: Destination, 10, EA;
LI 002: MOBILE LECTERN MOHOGANY ITEM# 90304 FFP MOBILE
LECTERN MOHOGANY ITEM# 90304 MOBILE LECTERN W/SHELF
ITEM# 90304, MULIT USE MOBILE LECTERN MAHOGANY, THREE-INONE TOP SEPARATES FOR USE AS A PORTABLE TABLE TOP
LECTERM AND BASE CAN BE USE FOR A AV CART. FOB: Destination,
1, EA;
LI 003: CONFRENCE TABLE ITEM#40850 FFP CONFRENCE TABLE
ITEM#40850 TABLE CONFRENCE 10' ITEM# 40850 AMERICAN
MAHOGANY, MUST BE OVEL 120' W X 48' D X 29.5' H TO FIT IN
CONFRENCE ROOM. FOB: Destination, 1, EA;
LI 004: CHAIR AIR GRID W/HEAD REST ITEM# 56475 FFP CHAIR AIR
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=460354ce2b4f07b9c9affe761fce06a0&tab=core&_cview=1
1/3
7/25/2014
GRID W/HEAD REST ITEM# 56475 CHAIR AIRGRID W/HEADREST

BLACK ITEM# 56475, CHAIR MUST HAVE HIGH BACK W/MESH
INSTANT LIFTSEAT ADJUSTMENT TILT SEAT MECHANISM
W/ALUMINUM FRAME, WITH LIFE TIME GUARANTEE. FOB: Destination,
17, EA;
Solicitation and Buy Attachments
***Question Submission: Interested offerors must submit any questions
concerning the solicitation at the earliest time possible to enable the
Buyer to respond. Questions must be submitted by using the 'Submit a
Question' feature at www.fedbid.com. Questions not received within a
reasonable time prior to close of the solicitation may not be
considered.***
For this solicitation, APG - Huachuca Installation intends to conduct an
online competitive reverse auction to be facilitated by the third-party
reverse auction provider, FedBid, Inc. FedBid has developed an online,
anonymous, browser based application to conduct the reverse auction.
An Offeror may submit a series of pricing bids, which descend in price
during the specified period of time for the aforementioned reverse
auction. APG - Huachuca Installation is taking this action in an effort to
improve both vendor access and awareness of requests and the
agency's ability to gather multiple, competed, real-time bids.All
responsible Offerors that respond to this solicitation MUST submit the
pricing portion of their bid using the online exchange located at
www.FedBid.com. There is no cost to register, review procurement data
or make a bid on www.FedBid.com.Offerors that are not currently
registered to use www.FedBid.com should proceed to www.FedBid.com
to complete their free registration. Offerors that require special
considerations or assistance may contact the FedBid Helpdesk at 8779FEDBID (877-933-3243) or via email at clientservices@fedbid.com.
Offerors may not artificially manipulate the price of a transaction on
www.FedBid.com by any means. It is unacceptable to place bad faith
bids, to use decoys in the www.FedBid.com process or to collude with
the intent or effect of hampering the competitive www.FedBid.com
process.Should offerors require additional clarification, notify the point of
contact or FedBid at 877-9FEDBID (877-933-3243) or
clientservices@fedbid.com.Use of FedBid: Buyers and Sellers agree to
conduct this transaction through FedBid in compliance with the FedBid
Terms of Use. Failure to comply with the below terms and conditions
may result in offer being determined as non-responsive.
It is also required any contractor doing business with the government
under contract be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM)
website url: https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/
QUOTES/BIDS are to be submitted on FedBid ONLY or they will not be
accepted.
Additional Info:
www.fedbid.com (b-639078_01, n-144987)
Contracting Office Address:
2133 Cushing St, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613
Place of Performance:
Special Shipping Instructions.
2/3
7/25/2014
Point of Contact(s):
Name: Client Services, Title: Client Services, Phone: 1.877.933.3243,
Fax: 703.422.7822, Email: Clientservices@fedbid.com;
Return To Opportunities List
Watch This Opportunity
Add Me To Interested Vendors
For Help: Federal Service Desk Accessibility
3/3
Latvian Connection LLC

1083 Vine St. No. 503
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Tel: 001 707 385 9344
July 25, 2014
BY REGISTERED EMAIL
General Counsel
Government Accounting Office
441 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20548
Email: Protests@gao.gov
Attn: Procurement Law Control Group, Room 1139
RE:
Pre Award Protest against FEDBID.COM and the U.S. ARMY, APG - Huachuca Installation for violating the Small
Business Act and Competition in Contracting Act for RFQ W91RUS14T0286 (FEDBID b-639078_01, n-144987) by
using FEDBID.com
Dear Procurement Law Group:

Latvian Connection General Trading and Construction LLC, ( LC LLC) A Veteran Owned Business, 1083 Vine St. No.
503, Healdsburg, CA, tel: [001 707 385 9344].
Email: [keven.barnes@LatvianConnectionLLC.com] , (KUWAIT CAGE: SGM59 DUNS: 534749622,
CALIFORNIA DUNS 830587791 CAGE 5GLB3, submits this PRE- AWARD Protest against the DEPARTMENT OF
ARMYs, APG - Huachuca Installation, for conducting a solicitation (Exhibit 1) on a commercial platform that has
suspended Veteran Owned Small Business Latvian Connection so that we may not bid and have been effectively excluded
from a Federal Competition when Latvian Connection LLC is not suspended or debarred from bidding on Federal
Contracts by the Army electing to utilized a Federal Contractor that discriminates against VETERAN OWNED SMALL
BUSINESSES.
The solicitation has delivery in the United States and APG - Huachuca Installation is circumventing the
COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT and the Small Business Act by not setting aside this solicitation with a value
under $ 150,000 and by utilizing a commercial service that discriminates against VETERAN OWNED BUSINESSES as
FEDBID does (Exhibit 2 and 3) where not all bidders who wish to bid may do so.
The APG - Huachuca Installation are utilizing a commercial service which has discriminated against a Veteran Owned
Small Business for asking question directly to the contracting officers where FEDBID has not abided by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations of posting the contracting offices POC details and instead has inserted itself into a government
position and in the process has interfered with communications to the contracting officer directly and causing significant
delays.
In accordance with 4 C.F.R. 21.1 (c ) (1), the relevant electronic mail address for this protest is
keven.barnes@LatvianConnectionLLC.com ( Representative for the Protester Latvian Connection General Trading and
Construction LLC) KUWAIT DUNS 534749622 and CAGE SGM59; CALIFORNIA DUNS 830587791 CAGE 5GLB3
The Contracting for this procurement is FEDBID.com clientservice@fedbid.com Point of Contact(s):
Name: Client Services, Title: Client Services, Phone: 1.877.933.3243, Fax: 703.422.7822, Email: Clientservices@fedbid.com;
And DEPARTMENT of the ARMY APG - Huachuca Installation, 2133 Cushing Street BLGD 61801 RM 2633, Ft. Huachuca, AZ 85613
GAO PRE - AWARD PROTEST
DEPARTMENT of the ARMYs
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC
2|Page
JULY 24, 2014
Per FAR 33.103 Protests to the agency

( 2 ) Latvian Connection LLC
1083 Vine St. No. 503
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) should sustain this protest, stay the performance of the
Contract, and direct the Department of the Army to not utilize a commercial service that doesnt allow U.S. Small Businesses
to bid upon Federal Opportunities. The GAO should direct that until FEDBID.com ceases discriminating against Veteran
Owned U.S. Small Business, Latvian Connection LLC, and after FEDBIDs business practices assimilate the Small Business
Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and the Competition in Contracting Act, that FEDBID is not to be utilized by the
U.S. Department of the Army or any other Federal Agency.
The GAO has stated in Exhibit 4:
Competition in federal procurement contracting has become a topic of increased congressional
and public interest, in part because of alleged misconduct involving noncompetitive contracts and
reports that the number of noncompetitive contract actions has increased. President Obama also
emphasized competition in his March 4, 2009, memorandum on government contracting.
Additionally, prominent officials within the Department of Defense (DOD), which accounts for
some 70% of federal procurement spending per year, have expressed their commitment to
reducing DODs use of noncompetitive contracts.
The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984 generally governs competition in federal
procurement contracting. Any procurement contract not entered into through the use of
procurement procedures expressly authorized by a particular statute is subject to CICA. CICA
requires that contracts be entered into after full and open competition through the use of
competitive procedures unless certain circumstances exist that would permit agencies to use
noncompetitive procedures. Full and open competition can be obtained through the use of sealed
bids, competitive proposals, or other procures defined as competitive under CICA (e.g.,
procurement of architectural or engineering services under the Brooks Act). Full and open
competition under CICA also encompasses full and open competition after exclusion of
sources, such as results when agencies engage in dual sourcing or set aside acquisitions for small
businesses.
Any contract entered into without full and open competition is noncompetitive, but
noncompetitive contracts can still be in compliance with CICA when circumstances permitting
other than full and open competition exist. CICA recognizes seven such circumstances, including
(1) single source for goods or services; (2) unusual and compelling urgency; (3) maintenance of
the industrial base; (4) requirements of international agreements; (5) statutory authorization or
acquisition of brand-name items for resale; (6) national security; and (7) contracts necessary in
the public interest. CICA also allows agencies to use special simplified procedures when
acquiring goods or services whose expected value is less than $150,000, or commercial goods or
services whose expected value is less than $6.5 million ($12 million in emergencies).
The Army excluding competition by utilizing a Federal Contractor and allowing that contractor FEDBID to put a defacto
debarment on Latvian Connection LLC and other U.S. Small Businesses IS NOT one of the 7 reasons that the Army could be
authorized to use a Federal Contractor that has interfered with the Procurement Integrity that allows all eligible bidders to bid.
Is it in the public interest to allow FEDBID to suspended illegally an undetermined number of U.S. Small Business from using
a platform upon which to bid on Federal Contracts. That is Bid Rigging and this bid rigging is at a Congressional Level and
involves the GAO, DoD Agencies like the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, National Park Service, and Department of
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

3|Page
JULY 24, 2014
Interior. This bid rigging also involves Board Members of FEDBID whose past service in the U.S. Military are being used to
get the Army to exclusively utilize FEDBID (not even fair used of the Reverse Auction Sites available to the United States
Government ) and that Army Organizationsl Conflict of Interest is retired Army General George Casey. (Exhibit 12) General
Casey sits on the Board of FEDBID that discriminates against a U.S. Veteran Owned Small Business that served in Iraq with
General Casey in the same U.S. Embassy that General Casey worked in Baghdad, Iraq (Green Zone ).
The GAO stated in Exhibit 10, regarding Reverse Auctions that:

All four agencies contracted with FedBid, a fee-based contractor, to conduct their reverse auctions during fiscal year 2012.
Agency officials stated that contracting officers are required to follow established contracting procedures and rules. The
contracting officer must also establish the basis for award. For example, the contracting officer can make the award to the
lowest bidder or make the award based on a cost/technical trade-off process where it is in the best interest of the government
to consider other than the lowest price. In fact, on the basis of our analysis of a random sample of auctions, we estimate that
24 percent of all reverse auction contracts awarded by the four agencies in fiscal year 2012 were not awarded to the lowest
bidding vendor.
24 % of awards going to an other than low bidder in a Reverse Auction is recognizing the bid-rigging, but failing to let
Congress know that bid-rigging on an international scale is the also known within FEDBID as ATP. This is not a technical
trade off this is bid rigging.
Since the GAO are part of the problem that has failed to ensure that Veteran Owned Small Businesses are not subjected to bidrigging of FEDBID and that Lowest Price Technically Acceptable is the rule and not bid-rigging, REPOSTS, steering, preselection, and other procurement irregularities of FEDBID, then it is no wonder that FEDBID believe they have the authority
to suspend a U.S. Small Business from bidding on Federal contracts.
INTERESTED PARTY STATUS
As discussed below LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC was denied competing for solicitation , W91RUS14T0286
FEDBID b-639078_01, n-144987 (Exhibits 1). LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC incorporates all the below facts and
Exhibits into this Interested Party Status section. Further, if this protest is sustained and Department of Armys APG Huachuca Installations W91RUS14T0286, FEDBID b-639078_01, n-144987 evaluates LATVIAN CONNECTION
LLCs proposal, then LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC, responsible offeror will have a reasonable chance of winning
the Contract. Therefore, LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC is an actual offeror whose direct economic interest is affected
by the award of the Contract and hence, an interested party. 31 U.S.C. 3551 (2000); FAR 33.101; 4 C.F.R.

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

4|Page
JULY 24, 2014
21.0(a)(2006); Designer Assoc. , Inc.,B-293226, FEB 12, 2004 C.P.D. 114 at 2. This is a PRE-Award Protest filed
before the bid due in date of July 31, 2014.
TIMELINESS OF THIS PROTEST
The Pre-Award protest against the Department of Armys APG - Huachuca Installation posted on FBO July
23, 2014 and is timely if filed the bid due in date of July 31, 2014:
21.2 Time for filing:
(a)(1) Protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to bid opening or the time set for
receipt of initial proposals shall be filed prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals. In
procurements where proposals are requested, alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which
are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing time for receipt of
proposals following the incorporation.
(2) Protests other than those covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis
of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a
procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested,
is required. In such cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have been known either before or as
a result of the debriefing, the initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall
be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.
The basis is this protest is that the Department of the Army has known of the anti-competitive procedures of FEDBID by
suspending Veteran Owned Businesses from utilizing the Reverse Auction site, FEDBID.com when Latvian Connection LLC
is not suspended or debarred from bidding on FEDERAL contracts. FEDBID seems to believe that they can participate in
the Federal Marketplace and discriminate against users of the Federal Market place by discriminating and barring access to
FEDERAL purchase of which FEDBID is not selling the US Government is selling, and FEDBID is arbitrarily blocking
access to Veteran Owned Small Businesses for whistleblowing activities of reporting, using GAO Protests, FEDBID.com
violation of Federal Laws.
The new interim rules are part of a temporary pilot program that is in effect through Jan. 1, 2017. While
the twin rules apply to different agencies the DFARS provisions apply only to the U.S. Department of
Defense, NASA and the Coast Guard, while the FAR provisions cover all other federal agencies except
the intelligence community their terms are virtually identical. The rules amend FAR Subpart 3.9 and
DFARS Subpart 203.9 to add protections for contractor or subcontractor employees against reprisal for
certain whistleblowing activities.
In summary, the new whistleblower protection regulations: (1) provide protections to whistleblowers
disclosing certain sorts of information; (2) set out the entities to whom whistleblowers may disclose
information; (3) provide a process for whistleblowers to file complaints if they believe they were
discriminated against for their disclosure of information, and set out the remedies available to
whistleblowers found to have been discriminated against; and (4) require employers to notify their
employees of these protections and remedies.
First, under the new interim rules, contractors cannot discriminate against whistleblowers as a reprisal for
disclosing information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of any of the following:
a gross mismanagement of a federal contract;
a gross waste of federal funds;

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

5|Page
JULY 24, 2014
an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract (where abuse of authority is defined as an

arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority that is inconsistent with the mission of the executive
agency ... or the successful performance of a[n agency] contract [or grant]);
a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or
a violation of a law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract (including competition for or
negotiation of a contract).
FAR 3.908-3(a); DFARS 203.903(1). In particular, the last category violations of a law, rule, or
regulation related to a federal contract is broad enough to cover all manner of activities. Prohibited
reprisals include discharge, demotion or other discrimination against the employee. Under these clauses,
a contractor may not take action against an employee even if that reprisal is undertaken at the request of
an executive branch official, unless the request takes the form of a nondiscretionary directive that is within
the authority of the executive branch official making the request. The new regulations do not, however,
provide any rights to disclose classified information not otherwise already provided by law.
Second, the new interim rules set out the entities to whom whistleblowers may disclose the above-listed
types of information. Contractors may be somewhat heartened to learn that their own management
employees are on the list of individuals to whom a potential whistleblower may choose to disclose; the list
of other entities who can receive information is robust, however. Whistleblowers may disclose evidence to
any of the following entities:
A member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress;
An inspector general;
The U.S. Government Accountability Office;
A federal employee responsible for contract oversight or management at the relevant agency;
An authorized official of the U.S. Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency;
A court or grand jury; or
A management official or other employee of the contractor or subcontractor who has the responsibility
to investigate, discover or address misconduct.
Latvian Connection LLC filed a GAO Pre-Award Protest against FEDBID.com and the Department of the Navy on June 28,
2014 (Exhibit 5)
PRE-AWARD GAO PROTEST N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729 - LATVIAN CONNECTION

LLC_ (FEDBID and NAVY) (FILED JUNE 28, 2014)
On July 8, 2014, FEDBID.com sent Latvian Connection LLC a notice of suspension from using their reverse auction site.
This is discrimination for reporting the violations of Federal Law by FEDBID and the United States Navy to the GAO, which
now has a GAO case number of B-410000. ( Exhibit 6)
The FEDERAL Government is having its buyers of services and supplies discriminated against from bidding by the
retaliatory actions of FEDBID.com.
Latvian Connection LLC requests that this GAO Protest be referred to the Small Business Administration for their
comments.
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

6|Page
JULY 24, 2014
19.201 General policy.

(a) It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to small business,
veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small
disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. Such concerns must also have the maximum
practicable opportunity to participate as subcontractors in the contracts awarded by any executive agency, consistent with
efficient contract performance. The Small Business Administration (SBA) counsels and assists small business concerns
and assists contracting personnel to ensure that a fair proportion of contracts for supplies and services is placed with
small business.
Latvian Connection LLC requests that this GAO Protest be referred to the Small Business Administration for their
comments.
FACTUAL GROUNDS OF THE PROTEST

1. The RFQ W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID (b-639078_01, n-144987) was posted on www.fbo.gov on July 23, 2014
and was issued by the Department of ARMYs APG - Huachuca Installation. The value of the solicitation is less than
$ 150,000 and has a performance location of Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613. The Small Business Act applies. Latvian
Connection LLC should be competing against only other U.S. Small Businesses and is unable to compete at all due to the
Armys conducting a solicitation using the services of a commercial company that discriminates against U.S. Small
Businesses and this solicitation is not set aside for U.S. Small Business Only. The white collar criminal actors are still
entrenched in the Pentagon and in the Army Contracting Officers who try to utilize a commercial platform for their white
collar criminal activities instead of www.fbo.gov and use only lowest priced technically acceptable award system.
The Department of the Army knows of 2 cases where U.S. Small Business concerns have been suspended from using
FEDBID.com, arbitrarily and in retaliation for filing GAO protests or questioning the bid-rigging methodology of ATP.
There are other Reverse Auction services and the Department of the Army does not have to engage in using what appears to
be a monopoly for the use of reverse auctions in light of the GAOs report that FEDBID is hardly a competitive platform.
(Exhibit 10)
II.
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLCs Proposal
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC, a U.S. Veteran Owned Business whose owner is a Retired US Air Force Master
Sergeant that served 28 years in the military and served in Iraq and has offices in California and Kuwait. Latvian
Connection LLC was denied an opportunity to bid by the Department of the Armys pandering use of the monopoly
FEDBID.com. (Exhibit 13) AND NINTY FOUR PAGES OF U.S. FEDERAL PROCUREMENTS THAT LATVIAN
CONNECTION LLC CANNOT BID UPON DUE TO THE INTERFERANCE OF FEDBID.COM BY ILLEGALLY
BARRING (DESCRIMINATING) AGAINST VOSB LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC
Request of a ruling by the Comptroller General of the United States
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC specifically requests that the GAO recommend that the solicitation of
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID b-639078_01, n-144987 be conducted without utilizing the Reverse Auction site
FEDBID.com when there are other platforms that do not discriminate against Veteran Owned Small Businesses. The
GAO should recommend that the Department of ARMYs APG - Huachuca Installation post a copy of the solicitation

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

7|Page
JULY 24, 2014
for full and open competition; not conduct it using Reverse Auction and that the Small Business Act be honored, and the
solicitation is set aside for U.S. Small Businesses that EXCLUDES all foreign companies and Large Businesses.
FEDBID.com (Exhibit 2) is a platform for U.S. Contracting Officer to circumvent the Federal Laws of the United States.
1. Routinely violate the Competition in Contracting Act by not posting Justifications and Approvals for Sole Brands
2. Routinely violates the Small Business Act for purchases inside the United States for routine commodity items with a
solicitation value of less than $ 150,000
3. In violation of FAR 15.206, routinely REPOST and not award to low bidder and fails to post the Contracting Officers
Amendment as to why the solicitation number has remained the same.
4. Fails to abide by archiving policies for Federal solicitations.
5. Assumes the Contracting Authority of the U.S. Army without proper delegation of a SF1402 from the contracting
officer and lists itself on FBO where the contracting office and phone number belong for the United States Agencys
contracting office.
REQUEST FOR HEARING OR CONFERENCE AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
If the issues in this case cannot be resolved on the basis of the documents requested, then LATVIAN CONNECTION
LLC requests a hearing on all of the matters set forth above. 4 C.F.R. 21.1 (d)(2008). Latvian Connection LLC does not
request a protective order. LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC EXPRESSLY REQUEST THAT THE AGENCY NOT BE
GRANTED ANY EXPEDITE OF THIS GAO LEVEL PROTEST. Latvian Connection LLC wants the Agency Report
and Latvian Connection LLC REQUESTS this Protest referred to the Small Business Administration.
LEGAL GROUNDS OF PROTEST
41 CFR 60
300.5(a) Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding
Disabled Veterans, Recently Separated Veterans, Other Protected Veterans and Armed Forces Service Medal
Veterans: This contractor and subcontractor shall abide by the requirements of 41 CFR 60
300.5(a). This regulation prohibits discrimination against qualified protected veterans,
The CEO of Latvian Connection LLC is one of those Other Protected Veterans and Armed Forces Service Medal
Veterans (Exhibit 7) and is now being discriminated against by Subcontractor FEDBID.com from gaining access to bid
competitively on Federal Procurements. Yes General Casey, you are part of a company discriminating against Iraq Vets
who own businesses in the United States.
When using simplified acquisition procedures, agencies must promote competition to the maximum extent practicable.
10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(3) (2012). In meeting this requirement, agencies must make reasonable efforts, consistent with
efficiency and economy, to afford all eligible and interested vendors an opportunity to compete. S.D.M. Supply, Inc., B271492, June 26, 1996, 96-1 CPD 288 at 4.
FEDBID is a contractor of the Federal Government ( Exhibit 8) and must have in their contract with the Federal
Government that they may not discriminate and will abide by Federal Laws and Regulations, or it would appear they are
in breach of their Federal Contract.

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

8|Page
JULY 24, 2014
There is Overwhelming Evidence that LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC was prejudiced by the Department of ARMYs
APG - Huachuca Installation use of FEDBID.com that has, without any contracting authority, suspended a U.S.
Veteran Owned Business from bidding on Federal Contracts a defacto unofficial debarment regarding
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987.
I.
Latvian Connection LLC has been unfairly denied the opportunity to compete. (Exhibits 2 & 4)
II.
The legal grounds that support this Pre-Award Protest are:

(the overarching principle codified in the Competition in Contracting Act is that agencies provide impartial,
fair, and equitable treatment for each contractor); Dubinsky v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 243, 259 (1999)
(making offerors aware of the rules of the game in which they seek to participate is fundamental to fairness
and open competition). (Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001)
When using simplified acquisition procedures, agencies must promote competition to the maximum extent
practicable. 10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(3) (2012). In meeting this requirement, agencies must make reasonable
efforts, consistent with efficiency and economy, to afford all eligible and interested vendors an opportunity to
compete. S.D.M. Supply, Inc., B-271492, June 26, 1996, 96-1 CPD 288 at 4.
The GAO has stated that in conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the procurements are conducted
consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and with the terms of the solicitation. Russell
Enters. of N. Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003, 2003 CPD 134 at 3.
The FEDBID buy FAR clauses that the Department of the Army selected state the following:
The selected Offeror must comply with the following commercial item terms and conditions. FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to
Offerors - Commercial, applies to this acquisition. The selected Offeror must submit a completed copy of the provision at 52.2123, Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items. FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial
Items, applies to this acquisition. The following FAR clauses in paragraph (b) of FAR clause 52.212-5, Contract Terms and
Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items, will apply: 52.222-21, 52.222-26, 52.222-35,
52.222-36, 52.222-37, 52.225-13, 52.232-34. The full text of a FAR clause may be accessed electronically at
http://www.acqnet.gov/far.
Latvian Connection LLC meets all of these terms and conditions, yet cannot bid upon this solicitation due to the
contracting office electing to use a contractor, FEDBID, that has arbitrarily blocked Latvian Connection LLC from
bidding on the solicitation W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987.
It is deceitful, and disingenuous for the U.S. Army to make an assumption that ALL U.S. Small Businesses are able to
compete for this requirement when the Army is aware that FEDBID has suspended some Federal bidders. FEDBID.com
has a responsibility to uphold the Federal Laws of the United States and the Small Business Act and DoD Directives
instead of aiding what appears to be a violation of Federal Law The Small Business Act and the Competition in
Contracting Act. FEDBID.com are DoD contractor (Exhibit 2) to Latvian Connection LLC and this DoD company along
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

9|Page
JULY 24, 2014
with Board Member Retired General Casey and Obama OFPP appointee, Joseph Jordan, who abandoned his
Presidential post appear to be providing a platform by which discriminate against U.S. Small Businesses by not
allowing Latvian Connection LLC to bid upon the opportunity solicitation W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b639078_01, n-144987 by illegally suspending Latvian Connection LLC from bidding on a Federal solicitation.
The Competition in Contracting Act states:

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 generally requires that contracting agencies obtain full and open competition
through the use of competitive procedures. 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(a)(1)(A) (2006). In furtherance of this goal, agencies are
required to use reasonable methods to publicize their procurement needs. Kendall Healthcare Prods. Co., B-289381, Feb. 19,
2002, 2002 CPD para. 42 at 6. The official public medium for providing notice of contracting actions by federal agencies is
the FedBizOpps website, which has been designated by statute and regulation as the government-wide point of entry. 15
U.S.C. sect. 637(e); 41 U.S.C. sect. 416; FAR sections 2.101, 5.101(a)(1), 5.201(d). The notice provided by an agency must
include an "accurate description" of the property or services to be purchased, sufficient to provide prospective offerors with
the ability to make an informed business judgment as to whether to request a copy of the solicitation, see 41 U.S.C. sect.
416(b)(1); TMI Management Sys., Inc., B-401530, Sept. 28, 2009, 2009 CPD para. 191 at 3.
According to the GAO in a synopsis of COMPTROLLER GENERAL KEY EXCERPTS case regarding (Ideal Fastener
Corporation, B-404206, January 11, 2011) (pdf)
The official public medium is www.fbo.gov NOT FEDBID.com This solicitation is not fair and open, it is excluding
bidders that the U.S. Government hasnt suspended from bidding under the due processes afforded contractors under FAR
Part 9, but instead this is a solicitation that is being conducted as Other than Fair and Open without a Justification and
Approval for depending upon the discriminatory contractor FEDBID. By Federal statute and regulations, this solicitation
should be conducted using only www.fbo.gov .
III.
The U.S. ARMYs APG - Huachuca Installation is being Unreasonable
By the Department of ARMYs APG - Huachuca Installation not conducting a solicitation using a bidding method that
doesnt involve utilizing Reverse Auction site FEDBID.com, and electing to conduct the solicitation as Lowest Priced,
Technically Acceptable has harmed Latvian Connection LLC in that we cannot bid due to being blocked by the monopoly
that the U.S. Government appears to pander to. The Department of the Army is required, by law, to compete the
solicitation according to the Competition in Contracting Act, and nowhere in CICA is it mentioned that Reverse Auctions
are a method to comply with the CICA. The Small Business Act applies to this purchase and for a Veteran Owned Small
Business to be denied to bid, by another Federal Government contractor is an interference into the procurement process.
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

10 | P a g e
JULY 24, 2014
By using ineffective Reverse Auctions (Exhibit 10), the APG - Huachuca Installation are being unreasonable in using
FEDBID.com which discriminates against U.S. Small Businesses and Veteran Medal holders.
President Obamas Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget issued a Memorandum on the
subject of a April 25, 2012 meeting of the Small Business Procurement Group (Exhibit 11) and this memo from Joseph G.
Jordan, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, and Karen G. Mills, Administrator of the Small Business
Administration state that there were immediate steps to ensure small businesses are utilized to the maximum extent
possible. Maximizing Opportunities for Small Businesses under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold Pursuant to
longstanding statutory requirements in the Small Business Administration Act, agencies are required to automatically set
aside work for small businesses that is equal to or less that the value of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT)
(generally $ 150,000) unless the contracting officer determines the rule of two cannot be met ie. There is not a
reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in
terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. There are more than 5 U.S. Small Businesses in the Middle East Region,
SMI-USA LLC, Trade Links USA LLC, American General Trading, and Latvian Connection LLC.
Note FEDBID.com employees name. Joseph Jordan in President Obamas Memo. This is what POGO refers to as the
revolving door.
Mr. Jordan and Ms Mills go on to say that a third-party analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System suggest that a
significant amount of work under the SAT is not going to small businesses, including for products and services in
industries where small businesses are typically well represented. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses are
being lost, and that agencies must take additional steps to consistently apply set-asides in the manner prescribed by law
Latvian Connection LLC is being discriminated against 2 revolving door opportunists: U.S. Army General Casey
(FEDBID board member) and now Obama defector Joseph Jordan.
IV.
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC Has Been Prejudiced

Prejudice requires a reasonable likelihood that LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC would have been
awarded the Contract based on a fair evaluation of LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLCs bid but has been
prevented from bidding due to the arbitrary suspension of a non-government entity that is neither a Government
Agency or a SF1402 holding Contracting Officer. Such a determination that Latvian Connection LLC would be the
low bidder is not susceptible to a precise mathematical calculation; rather, prejudice requires only that but for the
agencys actions, the protestors would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the award. Anthem Alliance for
Health, Inc., TRICARE Management Activity Reconsideration, B-278189.5, July 13, 1998, 98-2 CPD 66. A
reasonable possibility of prejudice therefore is sufficient to sustain the protest. United Intl. Engg., Inc., B-245448.3,
Jan 29, 1992, 92-1 C.P.D. 122. Europe Displays, Inc., B-297099. Latvian Connection LLC has been prejudiced by
APG - Huachuca Installation violation of the Competition in Contracting Act and limiting competition to exclude
Latvian Connection LLC and by circumventing the Small Business Act in that ALL eligible bidders have access to
Federal Contracts.

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

11 | P a g e
JULY 24, 2014
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC requests that the following materials be included in the agency
report, pursuant to 4 C.F.R. 21.1(d)(2008):
ALL communications from APG - Huachuca Installation to FEDBID.com

Small Business Office managers Memos regarding use of FEDBID.com
Memos from Armys ERDC - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center direction to
Army Contracting Officers to utilize FEDBID.com
A copy of the Justification and Approval to compete using other than Full and Open competition that
excludes FEDBID users suspended by FEDBID, but under FAR Part 9
The SF 2579 Small Business Coordination Record
The bid abstract of W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987
REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND CONCLUSION

LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC requests that the Agency take corrective action and conduct the solicitation as a
Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable solicitation on www.fbo.gov or FEDCONNECT.com; post an amendment that
FEDBID will not be utilized for this solicitation or other Army solicitations, and conduct the solicitation according to the
Competition in Contracting Act, the Small Business Act (s), and the Federal Acquisition Regulations without utilizing
FEDBID.
We also request that LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest,
including reasonable protest preparation fees. Bid Protest Regulations 4 C.F.R. 21.8(d)(1) (2010).
Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, the GAO may recommend that protest costs be reimbursed where
they find that an agencys action violated a procurement statute or regulation. 31 U.S.C. 3554(c)(1) (2010). The
GAOs Bid Protest Regulations provide that, where the contracting agency decides to take corrective action in response to
a protest, the GAO may recommend that the protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including
reasonable attorneys fees. 4 C.F.R. 21.8(e) (2010). The GAO has stated that it does not mean that costs should be
reimbursed in every case in which an agency decides to take corrective action; rather, a protester should be reimbursed its
costs where an agency unduly delayed its decision to take corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest.
Griners-A-One Pipeline Servs., Inc.--Costs, B-255078.3, July 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD 41 at 5.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Keven L. Barnes
CEO
W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

7/9/2014
Security Alert
BACK TO FEDBID.COM
Security Alert
SECURITY ALERT
There is a problem with your account. Please contact FedBid's Client Services at 1.877.9FEDBID(933.3243) or ClientServices@FedBid.com
for further information.
CONTINUE >
2001- 2014 FedBid Inc., All Rights Reserved
https://marketplace.fedbid.com/userlogin.do
Toll-free: 877.9FEDBID | Accessibility Information | Privacy | Terms | Feedback | C ontact Us
1/1
Keven L. Barnes
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Quality Assurance <QA@fedbid.com>

Tuesday, July 08, 2014 5:20 PM
keven.barnes@latvianconnectionllc.com
Quality Assurance; Brad Hungerman; Legal
Account Status - LATVIAN CONNECTION GENERAL TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION
LLC [DUNS: 830587791]
Good morning,
The purpose of this communication is to inform you that, effective immediately, the LATVIAN CONNECTION GENERAL
TRADING AND CONSTRUCTION LLC [DUNS: 830587791] account with FedBid, Inc. has been suspended in
accordance within our right to terminate service, as referenced in FedBids Terms of Use:
System and Business Integrity: Latvian Connection has taken actions to repeatedly and purposely interfere with
FedBid's business relationships.
Right to Terminate: Latvian Connection's use of the FedBid marketplace demonstrates that Latvian Connection
has not used (and does not intend to use) the FedBid marketplace as required in the FedBid Terms of Use.
As the facilitator of transactions between Buyers and Sellers on www.FedBid.com, it is critical that all activity on the
FedBid marketplace is conducted uniformly and professionally according to the Terms of Use. These recent actions have
been unprofessional, and we cannot tolerate actions that may substantially and negatively impact our customers and our
business.
Please contact our Legal department with any questions; I have provided our Deputy General Counsels information for
your reference below.
Jeffrey M. Shrader
Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel
FedBid, Inc.
Direct: 703.839.7025
jeff.shrader@fedbid.com
Thank you,
Kim Clark
Quality Assurance Supervisor
FedBid, Inc.
Direct: 703-839-7010
kimberley.clark@fedbid.com
Better buying | Smarter selling

www.fedbid.com
Seller Help: http://www.fedbid.com/sellers/help/
Terms of Use: http://www.fedbid.com/marketplace/terms/
FAQs: http://www.fedbid.com/sellers/faqs/
NOTE TO RECIPIENT: The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual(s) or
entity(ies) named above and may be a communication privileged by law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
1
employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify the sender by email and destroy the original message. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Competition in Federal Contracting:

An Overview of the Legal Requirements
Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney
June 30, 2011
Congressional Research Service

7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40516
CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Competition in Federal Contracting: An Overview of the Legal Requirements
Summary
Competition in federal procurement contracting has become a topic of increased congressional
and public interest, in part because of alleged misconduct involving noncompetitive contracts and
reports that the number of noncompetitive contract actions has increased. President Obama also
emphasized competition in his March 4, 2009, memorandum on government contracting.
some 70% of federal procurement spending per year, have expressed their commitment to
reducing DODs use of noncompetitive contracts.
The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984 generally governs competition in federal
procurement contracting. Any procurement contract not entered into through the use of
procurement procedures expressly authorized by a particular statute is subject to CICA. CICA
requires that contracts be entered into after full and open competition through the use of
competitive procedures unless certain circumstances exist that would permit agencies to use
noncompetitive procedures. Full and open competition can be obtained through the use of sealed
bids, competitive proposals, or other procures defined as competitive under CICA (e.g.,
procurement of architectural or engineering services under the Brooks Act). Full and open
competition under CICA also encompasses full and open competition after exclusion of
sources, such as results when agencies engage in dual sourcing or set aside acquisitions for small
businesses.
Any contract entered into without full and open competition is noncompetitive, but
noncompetitive contracts can still be in compliance with CICA when circumstances permitting
other than full and open competition exist. CICA recognizes seven such circumstances, including
(1) single source for goods or services; (2) unusual and compelling urgency; (3) maintenance of
the industrial base; (4) requirements of international agreements; (5) statutory authorization or
acquisition of brand-name items for resale; (6) national security; and (7) contracts necessary in
the public interest. CICA also allows agencies to use special simplified procedures when
acquiring goods or services whose expected value is less than $150,000, or commercial goods or
services whose expected value is less than $6.5 million ($12 million in emergencies).
Issuance of orders under task order and delivery order (TO/DO) contracts is not subject to CICA,
although award of TO/DO contracts is. However, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
(FASA) of 1994 established a preference for multiple-award TO/DO contracts; required that
agencies provide contractors a fair opportunity to compete for orders in excess of $3,000 under
multiple-award contracts; and authorized the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to hear
protests challenging the issuance of task or delivery orders that increase the scope, period, or
maximum value of the underlying contract. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
FY2008 further limited the use of single-award TO/DO contracts. It also specified what
constitutes a fair opportunity to be considered for orders in excess of $5.5 million under
multiple-award contracts and granted GAO jurisdiction to hear protests of orders valued in excess
of $10 million. While the provision authorizing GAO to hear such protests regarding the orders of
civilian agencies sunset in May 2011, GAO recently found that it has jurisdiction over these
protests because the NDAA for FY2008 amended FASA to provide that all limitations on GAOs
jurisdiction over task and delivery order protests expired in May 2011, not just its authority over
protests of task and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. The 111th Congress enacted
legislation extending the sunset date for GAOs jurisdiction over protests of orders valued in
excess of $10 million issued by defense agencies until September 30, 2016 (P.L. 111-383, 825).
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................................2
Contracts Not Subject to CICA ...................................................................................................6
Contracts Subject to CICA ..........................................................................................................7
Full and Open Competition Defined ......................................................................................7
Competitive Procedures Resulting in Full and Open Competition ..........................................8
Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources................................................9
Circumstances Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition ...................................... 11
Justifications & Approvals ............................................................................................ 13
Special Simplified Procedures for Small Purchases .......................................................... 15
Other Competition Requirements ........................................................................................ 18
Competition Requirements for Task and Delivery Order Contracts ............................................ 20
Legislative Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 23
Figures
Figure 1. Contracts Subject and Not Subject to CICA..................................................................7
Figure 2. Simplified Acquisition Procedures: Competition Requirements at Various Price
Thresholds ............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3. TO/DO Contracts: Competition Requirements at Various Price Thresholds ................. 23
Tables
Table 1. Approving Officials for Noncompetitive Contracts in General...................................... 13
Table 2. Approving Officials for Noncompetitive Contracts Under the Simplified
Acquisition Procedures .......................................................................................................... 17
Table 3. Types of Competition Under CICA .............................................................................. 18
Table A-1. Potential Applications and Limitations ..................................................................... 26
Appendixes
Appendix. Circumstances Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition Under
CICA ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 29
Introduction
Procurement describes the process whereby the government obtains goods and services from
private parties that it does not produce or provide for itself. Competition in government
procurement means that the government determines from whom to buy goods and servicesand
thus with whom to contractby solicit[ing] or entertain[ing] offers from two or more
competitors, compar[ing] them, and accept[ing] one based on its relative value.1 Competition in
federal procurement contracting has recently become a topic of increased congressional and
public interest, in part because of high-profile incidents of alleged misconduct by contractors or
agency officials involving noncompetitive contracts and reports that the number of
noncompetitive contract actions by the federal government has increased.2 Hearings in the 110th
and 111th Congresses addressed agencies alleged failures to compete contracts properly,3 and
members enacted or proposed legislation addressing reported deficiencies in the laws governing
competition in federal contracting, or agencies compliance with these laws.4 President Obama
also emphasized competition in his March 4, 2009, memorandum on government contracting.5
1
Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Steve L. Schooner, Karen R. OBrien-DeBakey, and Vernon J. Edwards, The Government
Contracts Reference Book: A Comprehensive Guide to the Language of Procurement 109-110 (2d ed. 2007).
2
See, e.g., Robert OHarrow, Jr., FDA Takes End Run to Award Contract to PR Firm, Wash. Post, Oct. 2, 2008,
available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100103061.html (reporting
that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made a noncompetitive award to ensure the work would go to a
Washington public relations firm with ties to the FDA official arranging the deal); Alice Lipowicz, Agencies Spent
Billions of Stimulus Money on Noncompetitive Contracts, Fed. Computer Week, Oct. 15, 2009, available at
http://fcw.com/Articles/2009/10/15/Agencies-spent-billions-from-stimulus-on-noncompetitive-nonfixedpricecontracts.aspx (reporting widespread use of noncompetitive contracts under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act).
3
See, e.g., Failed Homeland Security Contracts: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Mgmt., Investigations & Oversight
of the House Comm. on Homeland Security, 110th Cong. (Sept. 17, 2008) (testimony of James L. Taylor, Deputy
Inspector General, DHS) (noting that DHS did not comply with federal regulations when it awarded a sole-source
contract to Chenega Technology Services Corporation); Contracting Revision Bills: Hearing before the Subcomm. on
Government Mgmt., Organization & Procurement of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Government Reform, 110th Cong.
(Feb. 27, 2008) (testimony of Paul A. Denett, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy) (highlighting
recent executive branch efforts to increase competition in contracting).
4
See infra notes 120 to 131 and accompanying text.
5
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Government Contracting: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, Mar. 4, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-forthe-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-Subject-Government-Contracting. This memorandum also called
for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop guidance to govern the appropriate use and
oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open
competition and other competitive procurement processes. Id. This guidance was issued on October 27, 2009, and
calls for agencies to focus on requirements development and outreach to potential vendors; use performance-based
acquisitions and commercial solutions; evaluate alternative competition strategies for larger and more complex
requirements; use strategic sourcing; ensure consistent maximization of competition at the task and delivery order
level; give maximum practicable consideration to small businesses; limit the length of any noncompetitive contracts;
ensure price reasonableness in noncompetitive contracts; regularly assess contractor performance under noncompetitive
contracts; engage with the marketplace to determine how barriers to competition can be removed; and analyze the
agencies largest spend categories. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Increasing
Competition and Structuring Contracts for Best Results, Oct. 27, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
assets/procurement_gov_contracting/increasing_competition_10272009.pdf. The October memorandum also required
agencies reduce by at least 10 percent the combined share of dollars obligated through new contracts in FY 2010 that
are awarded non-competitively and/or receive only one bid in response to a solicitation or request for quote, among
other things. Id.
some 70% of federal procurement spending per year,6 have expressed their commitment to
reducing DODs use of noncompetitive contracts.7
This report describes the competition requirements currently governing the procurement activities
of federal agencies. It addresses (1) what contracts are subject to competition requirements; (2)
what constitutes full and open competition for government contracts; (3) what is meant by full
and open competition after exclusion of sources; (4) the circumstances permitting agencies to
award contracts on the basis of other than full and open competition; (5) the special simplified
procedures for small purchases; (6) the competition requirements for task order and delivery
order (TO/DO) contracts; and (7) legislative reforms relating to competition. It also briefly
describes the benefits and drawbacks of competition, situates recent reform efforts within their
historical context, and discusses how the policy debates surrounding competition in federal
contracting can shape legislative responses. It does not directly address so-called public-private
competitions or competitive sourcing targets under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR) Act or Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.8 Public-private
competitions are conducted to determine whether government employees or private contractors
will perform functions formerly performed by the government that have been identified as
commercial and suitable for contracting out.9
Background
The federal government has promoted competition between offerors seeking to meet its needs
since at least 1781, when the Superintendent of Finance advertised in a local newspaper for
proposals from potential suppliers of food for federal employees in Philadelphia.10 Then, as now,
the government encouraged competition because of its reported benefits to the government and
the general public. Proponents of competition note that when multiple offerors compete for the
governments business, the government can acquire higher quality goods and services at lower
prices than it would acquire if it awarded contracts without competition. Proponents also note that
competition helps to curb fraud because it allows for periodic changes in the vendors from which
the government acquires goods and services, thereby limiting opportunities for government
employees to enter into collusive agreements with their regular suppliers. Competition is
similarly said to promote accountability by ensuring that contracts are entered into on their merits
and not upon any other basis (e.g., familial or other relationships between contracting officers and
6
Federal Contract Awards by Major Contracting Agency 2009, available at http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/
tables.php?tabtype=t1&rowtype=f&subtype=a&sorttype=2008.
7
See, e.g., Gates Cites Acquisition Reform as One of Defense Departments Greatest Challenges, 91 Fed. Cont. R. 71
(Feb. 3, 2009) (Gates mentioning seeking increased competition as one strategy for reforming DOD procurement);
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Review Criteria for the Acquisition
of Services: Memorandum, Feb. 18, 2009, available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA00273508-DPAP.pdf (memorandum from Shay D. Assad, Director of Defense Procurement, stating that the requirements of
service contracts should be articulated in such a way as to provide for maximum competition, in general, and for
meaningful competition for orders under multiple award contracts).
8
See FAIR Act, P.L. 105-270, 112 Stat. 2382 (1998) (codified at 31 U.S.C. 501 note); Executive Office of the
President, OMB, Performance of Commercial Activities: Circular A-76 Revised, May 29, 2003, available at http://a76.nih.gov/a76_rev2003.pdf.
9
For more on public-private competitions generally, see CRS Report RL32079, Federal Contracting of Commercial
Activities: Competitive Sourcing Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.
10
James F. Nagle, A History of Government Contracting 49 (2d ed. 1999).
contractors). Further, because the government is said to acquire the highest quality goods and
services at the lowest prices, proponents of competition note that competition helps government
officials reassure citizens that their tax dollars are not spent wastefully. Finally, proponents of
competition claim that citizens are less likely to perceive contracts as being awarded because of
favoritism when there is competition.
Competition is not considered an unmitigated good by all, however, as is noted by those who
advocate for certain limits on competition. Such commentators have pointed out that agency
operations can be delayed by the time it takes to solicit and evaluate offers from eligible
suppliers. These delays are reportedly especially harmful when agencies are contracting for goods
or services for disaster responses or military operations. Moreover, because there are costs
involved in agencies soliciting and evaluating offers, these commentators note that there comes a
point when the governments costs in competing contracts are greater than the savings it realizes
from the lower price, higher quality goods it obtains through competition. It was, in part, for this
reason that the drafters of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 198411 opted to require
full and open competition rather than maximum competition. They reportedly considered
language calling for maximum competition,12 but rejected it, in part, because there is a point
of diminishing return with competition. 13 Proponents of limits on competition further note that
competition can increase the risk that government contractors will be unable to perform by
allowing new contractorswho do not have experience meeting agencies needs or complying
with the accounting and paperwork requirements imposed on federal contractorsto win
government contracts. Agencies reportedly would prefer to deal with their incumbent contractors,
assuming these contractors are competent, because they represent known quantities for the
agencies.14
As the accompanying chronology illustrates, the federal governments requirements for
competition in contracting have periodically shifted as the government has variously sought to
realize the benefits of competition or further other goals, such as the protection of national
security in times of war or efficiency in agency operations, in its procurement activities. Armed
conflicts, in particular, typically lead to relaxation of competition requirements, but often result in
alleged abusessuch as war profiteering by contractors and waste of money on overpriced
goods and servicesthat later lead to increased competition requirements.15
11
CICA was enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, P.L. 98-369, 2701-2753, 98 Stat. 1175 (1984). It
amended the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947; Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949;
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974; and Truth in Negotiation Act (TINA) of 1962. It also created a
statutory basis for the bid-protest function of the GAO. CICAs competition requirements took effect on April 1, 1985.
12
Competition in Contracting Act of 1983: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Armed Services, 98th Cong., 1st Sess.
260-61 (1983). The guidelines for implementing some of President Obamas recently proposed procurement reforms
similarly call for maximum practicable competition, rather than maximum competition. See Executive Office of
the President, Office of Management and Budget, Updated Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, at 52 (Apr. 3, 2009), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/
memoranda_fy2009/m09-15.pdf.
13
Competition in Contracting Act of 1983, supra note 12, at 304 (testimony of John Cibinic, Jr., Government Contracts
Program, National Law Center, The George Washington University).
14
William S. Cohen, The Competition in Contracting Act, 14 Pub. Cont. L.J. 20-21 (1983/1984) (Generally, agency
officials have an easier time if they stay with the same contractor throughout the procurement process.).
15
See id. at 6 (describing allegations of war profiteering in the aftermath of WWI); Competition in Contracting Act of
1984: Hearings on H.R. 5184 Before the Subcomm. on Legis. & Natl Security of the House Comm. on Govt
Operations, 98th Cong., at 2 (1984) (statement by Representative Brooks) (describing how DOD spent $435 for an
ordinary claw hammer).
Chronology
1809
Congress passes the first law requiring competition in federal procurement

contracting. This law established what came to be known as formal advertising as
the preferred method for federal procurements by specifying that all purchases and
contracts for supplies or services shall be made by open purchases, or by
previously advertising for proposals. (2 Stat. 536 (1809)).
1861
Congress reaffirms its commitment to formal advertising by passing a statute stating

that all purchases and contracts for supplies and services, ... except for personal
services, ... shall be made by advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals
respecting the same unless immediate delivery is required due to public
exigencies. (12 Stat. 220 (1861)).
1914-1918
The War Industries Board authorizes negotiated procurements, or procurements

involving bargaining with the offerors after receipt of proposals. Such procurements
are classified as noncompetitive.
1930
The War Policies Commission recommends that formal advertising be replaced by

negotiated procurement during times of war. Congress does not enact this
proposed change, but does recognize additional exceptions allowing use of
negotiated procurement instead of formal advertising.
1939-1945
In December 1941, Congress passes the First War Powers Act, which authorizes
the President to grant agencies that are involved in the war authority to enter into
contracts without regard to the provision of law relating to the making,
performance, amendment, or modifications of contracts. (55 Stat. 838 (1941)).
Later in the war, the War Production Board prohibits agencies from using formal
advertising without specific authorization to do so.
1945
A task force of the Procurement Policy Board, consisting of officers from the federal
procuring agencies, recommends relaxing competition requirements to support the
growth and sustainability of the industrial base.
1947
Congress passes the Armed Services Procurement Act (ASPA), which generally
requires use of formal advertising but allows use of negotiated procurements when
any of seventeen exceptions apply. These exceptions address things such as
medicines or medical property; property purchased for authorized resale; perishable
or nonperishable subsistence supplies; and property or services for which it is
impracticable to secure competition. ASPA only applies to the procurement
contracts of defense agencies.
1949
Congress passes the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA),
subjecting civilian agencies to requirements like those in ASPA. FPASA recognizes
fifteen exceptions to formal advertising.
1982
Senators William V. Roth, Jr., Carl Levin, and William S. Cohen first introduce the
Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) (S. 2127). Increased competition in
contracting is also among the Carlucci Initiatives, 32 steps for reforming defense
acquisitions announced by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.
1984
Congress passes CICA, requiring agencies to obtain full and open competition
through the use of competitive procedures in their procurement activities unless
otherwise authorized by law.
1990-1991
Military agencies reportedly experience difficulties in procuring commercial items

for use during the Gulf War.
1994
Congress passes the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), which establishes
a preference for the acquisition of commercial items in meeting agencies
procurement needs. FASA also articulates competition requirements for task order
and delivery order (TO/DO) contracts.
1996
Congress passes the Federal Acquisition Reform Act (FARA), which requires that
agencies obtain full and open competition ... in a manner that is consistent with the
need to efficiently fulfill the Governments requirements. FARA also relaxes the
rules imposed on agencies purchases of commercial items.

2003
Congress passes the Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA). SARA further relaxes
the rules imposed upon procurement of commercial services.
2008
Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 limits the use of
single-award task order/delivery order (TO/DO) contracts in excess of $100
million; grants GAO temporary jurisdiction over protests involving orders of $10
million or more; and specifies what constitutes a fair opportunity to be considered
for orders in excess of $5 million.16
The current interest in competition in contracting is perhaps to be expected given developments in

the 25 years since the enactment of CICA. CICA itself requires that agencies obtain full and
open competition through the use of competitive procedures in all procurements not involving
the use of procedures expressly authorized by a particular statute.17 CICA remains the foundation
for the current competition requirements, but has been amended or supplemented by later laws
that place efficiency in agency operations or other public benefits on par with competition, or
expand agencies ability to use special simplified methods for contracting for commercial
items. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, for example, establishes a
preference for the procurement of commercial items, which are generally not subject to full and
open competition under CICA.18 FASA was followed by the Federal Acquisition Reform Act
(FARA) of 1996, which placed increasing emphasis on efficiency in agency operations by
requiring that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) be amended to ensure that the
requirement to obtain full and open competition is implemented in a manner that is consistent
with the need to efficiently fulfill the Governments requirements.19 FARA and the Services
Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) of 200320 also relaxed the rules governing agencies acquisition
of commercial items. More recently, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to use other than full and open competition upon
determining that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with [the competition]
provisions contrary to the public interest.21 This provision was designed to ensure that
competition requirements, among other things, did not slow the Treasury Departments
contracting for services that would help stabilize U.S. financial markets and the banking system. 22
16
The values contained in this chronology are those given in the statute as it was enacted. They do not reflect any
subsequent adjustments made for inflation.
17
10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(1)(A). Citations to CICAs codification generally reference two
titles of the United States Code: Title 10 governing procurements by defense agencies, NASA, and the Coast Guard,
and Title 41 governing procurements by civilian agencies. The numbering and language of these sections are often
but not alwaysidentical.
18
P.L. 103-355, 8104, 108 Stat. 3391 (codified at 10 U.S.C. 2377(a)-(b)); P.L. 103-355, 8203, 108 Stat. 3391
(codified at 41 U.S.C. 264b(a)-(b)) (The head of each executive agency shall ensure that procurement officials in
that executive agency, to the maximum extent practicable, acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental items other
than commercial items to meet the needs of the executive agency.).
19
P.L. 104-106, 4101, 110 Stat. 642 (Feb. 10, 1996) (codified at 41 U.S.C. 251 note).
20
P.L. 108-136, 1401-1433, 117 Stat. 1664-1676 (Nov. 23, 2003) (codified, in part, at 41 U.S.C. 264 note and 41
U.S.C. 403).
21
P.L. 110-343, Title I, 107(a), 122 Stat. 3773 (Oct. 3, 2008). The Secretary must transmit his or her determination,
and its accompanying justification, to several congressional committees within 7 days.
22
Some contracts entered into without full and open competition under the EESA have been of types traditionally
considered high risk for the government. Govt Accountability Office, Troubled Asset Relief Program: Additional
Actions Needed to Better Ensure Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency 38 (Dec. 2008), available at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-161.
Contracts Not Subject to CICA

Not all contractsor even all procurement contractsthat agencies lawfully enter into are the
result of full and open competition under CICA or an exception to it.23 Non-procurement
contracts, such as those resulting from agencies use of other transaction authority (OTA) or
similar authorities, are not subject to CICA because they are not procurement contracts, and CICA
only applies to procurement procedures.24 OTA refers to agencies authority to enter into an
other transaction, or a form of contract ... that is not a procurement contract, grant, or
cooperative agreement.25 Only a few agencies, most notably the Departments of Defense,
Transportation, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Energy, have been granted
OTA on a permanent or temporary basis so that they can contract for research and development
(R&D) or prototypes of promising new technologies without full and open competition.26
Contracting for R&D or prototypes can be difficult because the uncertainties inherent in the
development of new technologies make it hard to establish contract prices. Additionally, the
companies best able to perform such contracts are often not regular government vendors and may
be unwilling or unable to comply with the governments procurement regulations. OTA helps to
avoid these difficulties.
Also not subject to the requirement for full and open competition under CICA are those
procurement contracts entered into through the use of procurement procedures ... expressly
authorized by statute.27 There are numerous statutory provisions that allow agencies to use
specific procurement procedures in certain circumstances, or otherwise allow them to limit
competition for procurement contracts. One provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2005, for example, allowed the U.S. Agency for International Development to place task
orders with small or small disadvantaged businesses in lieu of providing a fair opportunity for
all eligible firms to compete. 28 Other provisions of this law allowed agencies to limit competition
to certain groups or entities, notwithstanding CICA, or to enter into contracts without
competition.29
23
In introducing the circumstances permitting use of noncompetitive procedures, CICA does not speak of exceptions
to its competition requirements. See 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) & 41 U.S.C. 253(c). However, it uses the term exception
in reference to these circumstances in its requirement for justifications and approvals of contracts awarded using other
than full and open competition, and commentators commonly refer to the CICA exceptions when describing these
circumstances. See 10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(3)(B) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(3)(B).
24
10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(1)(A).
25
Government Contracts Reference Book, supra note 1, at 414.
26
For more on OTA generally, see CRS Report RL34760, Other Transaction (OT) Authority, by L. Elaine Halchin.
27
10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A); 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(1)(A). CICA also does not apply to contract modifications, including
the exercise of price options evaluated as part of the initial competition, that are within the scope and under the terms of
existing contracts, or orders under requirements contracts or definite-quantity contracts. 48 C.F.R. 6.001(a)-(f).
28
P.L. 108-447, Division D, 534(e), 118 Stat. 2809, 3006 (Dec. 8, 2004).
29
Id. at Division E, Title I, 118 Stat. 3040 (allowing the Bureau of Land Management to limit competition for contracts
for hazardous fuel reduction activities to specified groups or entities, notwithstanding CICA); id. at Division E, Title II,
118 Stat. 3089 (allowing the National Gallery of Art to contract for the restoration and repair without competition).
Figure 1. Contracts Subject and Not Subject to CICA
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Contracts Subject to CICA

Any procurement contract not entered into through the use of procedures expressly authorized by
a particular statute, such as those described above, is subject to CICA. 30 CICA requires that these
contracts be entered into after full and open competition through the use of competitive
procedures unless certain circumstances exist that would permit agencies to use noncompetitive
procedures.31
Full and Open Competition Defined

Under CICA, full and open competition results when all responsible sources are permitted to
submit sealed bids or competitive proposals.32 A responsible source is a prospective contractor
who (1) has adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to acquire such
resources; (2) is able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule;
(3) has a satisfactory performance record; (4) has a satisfactory record of integrity and business
ethics; (5) has the necessary organization, experience, technical skills, and accounting and
operational controls, or the ability to obtain them; (6) has the necessary production, construction,
and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them; and (7) is otherwise qualified
and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations. 33
30
10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(1)(A).

10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(1)(A) (requirement for full and open competition); 10 U.S.C.
2304(c) & 41 U.S.C. 243(c) (circumstances allowing use of other than competitive procedures).
32
41 U.S.C. 403(6).
31
33
41 U.S.C. 403(7). For more information on the responsibility requirements applicable to prospective federal
contractors, see CRS Report R40633, Responsibility Determinations Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation: Legal
Standards and Procedures, by Kate M. Manuel.
Competitive Procedures Resulting in Full and Open Competition

Agencies meet CICAs requirement for full and open competition by using one of the
competitive procedures recognized under the act.34 CICA recognizes the following procedures
as competitive:
1. Sealed bids. Sealed bids are offers submitted in response to invitations for bids
(IFBs); opened publicly at a specified time and place; and evaluated without
discussions with the bidders, with the contract being awarded to the lowestpriced responsible bidder.35 CICA requires that agencies solicit sealed bids if (1)
time permits their solicitation, submission, and evaluation; (2) the award will be
made on the basis of price and other price-related factors; (3) it is not necessary
to conduct discussions with bidders about their bids; and (4) there is a reasonable
expectation of receiving more than one sealed bid. 36
2. Competitive Proposals. Agencies are to use competitive proposals whenever
sealed bids are not appropriate in light of the previous four factors.37
Competitive proposals are offers received in response to requests for proposals
(RFPs). RFPs generally provide for discussion or negotiation between the
government and at least those offerors within the competitive range, with the
contract being awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the
best value for the government.38
3. Combinations of competitive procedures. These include procedures like two-step
sealed bidding. With two-step sealed bidding, the first step consists of the
submission, evaluation and, potentially, discussion of technical proposals from
each bidder with no pricing involved. In the second step, sealed bids are
submitted only by those who submitted technically acceptable proposals during
the first step.
4. Procurement of architectural or engineering services conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. 541-559). The Brooks Act
allows the selection of architects and engineers based upon their qualifications
without consideration of the proposed price for the work. Awards must be made
to the highest-ranked offeror unless a reasonable price cannot be agreed upon.
5. Competitive selection of basic research proposals resulting from a general
solicitation and peer or scientific review of proposals, or from a solicitation
conducted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 638 (research and development contracts for
small businesses).
34
CICA defines competitive procedures as those under which an agency enters into a contract pursuant to full and
open competition. 41 U.S.C. 403(5).
35
48 C.F.R. 14.101(a)-(e).
36
10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv) & 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv).
37
10 U.S.C. 2304(a)(2)(B) & 41 U.S.C. 253(a)(2)(B).
38
48 C.F.R. 15.000-15.102. Best value is determined by considering price and other factors included in the
solicitation. The competitive range consists of those proposals having the greatest likelihood of award based on the
factors and significant subfactors of the solicitation. FARA allows agencies to limit the competitive range to those
offerors rated most highly based upon the solicitations criteria when the number of offers that would otherwise be
included in the competitive range ... exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. P.L. 104106, 4103, 110 Stat. 643-44 (Feb. 10, 1996) (codified at 10 U.S.C. 2305(b) & 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)).
6. Procedures established by the General Services Administration (GSA) for its

multiple awards schedule program. Such procedures are recognized as
competitive so long as participation in the GSA program is open to all
responsible sources, and orders and contracts under GSAs procedures result in
the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the governments needs.
7. Procurements conducted in pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 644. Section 644 addresses
set-asides for small businesses, among other things. Such set-asides are
competitive so long as all responsible businesses entitled to submit offers under
Section 644 are permitted to compete.39
The sixth of these provisions is particularly significant because it allows agencies to use the socalled Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) or GSA schedules. These schedules enable agencies
to take advantage of a simplified process for obtaining commercial supplies and services by
issuing task or delivery orders directly to contractors listed on the schedules without issuing IFBs
or RFPs.40
Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources

Some competitions in which only certain contractors can compete nonetheless meet CICAs
requirement for full and open competition because CICA provides for full and open competition
after exclusion of sources.41 Full and open competition after exclusion of sources occurs in
two contexts: agencies dual sourcing initiatives and set-asides for small businesses.42
The defense agencies, in particular, have a lengthy history of dual sourcing, or distributing their
contracts for particular goods or services among multiple manufacturers or suppliers in order to
ensure that their operations are not vulnerable to the fortunes of individual companies.43 CICA
recognizes this history, and the agency concerns underlying it, by stating that agencies
... may provide for the procurement of property or services covered by this section using
competitive procedures but excluding a particular source in order to establish or maintain any
alternative source or sources of supply for that property or service if the agency head
determines that to do so
(A) would increase or maintain competition and would likely result in reduced overall costs
for such procurement, or for any anticipated procurement, of such property and services;
39
41 U.S.C. 259(b)(1)-(5).
48 C.F.R. 8.402(a).
41
10 U.S.C. 2304(b) & 41 U.S.C. 253(b).
42
10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1)-(2) & 41 U.S.C. 253(b)(1)-(2). In practice, there is one important distinction between full
and open competition after exclusion of sources for purposes of dual sourcing and for small business set-asides.
Agencies engaged in dual sourcing need justifications and approvals for their awards, which are discussed in more
detail below, while those setting aside procurements for small businesses generally do not. Compare 48 C.F.R.
6.202(b)(1) (dual sourcing) with 48 C.F.R. 6.203(b), 6.204(b), 6.205(b), 6.206(b), and 6.207(b) (small
business set-asides). Only when agencies make sole-source awards in excess of $20 million under the authority of
Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act are justifications and approvals required. See P.L. 111-84, 811, 123 Stat.
2405-06 (Oct. 28, 2009).
43
See, e.g., Competition in Contracting Act, supra note 14, at 25-26.
40
(B) would be in the interest of national defense in having a facility (or a producer,
manufacturer, or other supplier) available for furnishing the property or service in the case of
a national emergency or industrial mobilization;
(C) would be in the interest of national defense in establishing or maintaining an essential
engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other
nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center;
(D) would ensure the continuous availability of a reliable source of supply of such property
or service;
(E) would satisfy projected needs for such property or service determined on the basis of a
history of high demand for the property or service; or
(F) in the case of medical supplies, safety supplies, or emergency supplies, would satisfy a
critical need for such supplies.44
Recently, Congress has sometimes mandated dual sourcing, especially by the Department of
Defense (DOD), in order to ensure competition in future procurements. 45
CICA similarly recognizes the history of setting aside acquisitions for competitions limited to
small businesses in general, or to specific subcategories of small businesses, by allowing
procurement of property or services ... using competitive procedures, but excluding other than
small business concerns.46 The Small Business Act provides for such set-asides for small
businesses generally; women-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned and Historically
Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses; and small businesses owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals that are participating in the
Business Development Program under Section 8(a) of the act.47 Set-asides can also be made for
local firms during major disasters or emergencies under the authority of the Stafford Act (42
U.S.C. 5150).48
44
10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1)(A)-(F) & 41 U.S.C. 253(b)(1)(A)-(F). CICA added the provisions currently in subsections
(A)-(C) of these statutes, while FARA added those in (D)-(F).
45
See, e.g., P.L. 110-181, 213, 122 Stat. 36 (Oct. 14, 2008) (requiring DOD to ensure the obligation and expenditure
in each such fiscal year of sufficient annual amounts for the continued development and procurement of 2 options for
the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter in order to ensure the development and competitive production for the
propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter.); Gates Says Tanker Competition May Resume in Late Spring; Murtha
Endorses Split Buy, 91 Fed. Contr. R. 75 (Feb. 3, 2009).
46
10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(2) & 41 U.S.C. 253(b)(2).
47
See 15 U.S.C. 637(a) (set-asides for small disadvantaged businesses participating in the 8(a) Business Development
Program); 15 U.S.C. 637(m) (set-asides for women-owned small businesses); 15 U.S.C. 644 (set-asides for small
businesses generally); 15 U.S.C. 657a (set-asides for HUBZone small businesses); 15 U.S.C. 657f (set-asides for
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses).
48
The Stafford Act provides that [i]n the expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance, distribution of supplies,
reconstruction, and other major disaster or emergency assistance activities ... carried out by contract or agreement with
private [entities], preference shall be given, to the extent feasible and practicable, to those organizations, firms, and
individuals residing or doing business primarily in the area affected by such major disaster or emergency.
10
Circumstances Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition

By definition, under CICA, any procurement contract entered into without full and open
competition is noncompetitive. 49 This is not to say, however, that every procurement contract
entered into without using competitive procedures is in violation of CICA. This is because CICA
recognizes seven circumstances wherein agencies can use other than competitive procedures
without violating the acts competition requirements. 50 Such circumstances involve the following:
1. Single source for goods or services: The property or services needed by the
agency are available from only one responsible source and no other type of
property or service satisfies the agencys needs.
2. Unusual and compelling circumstances: The agencys need for property or
services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the government
would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of
sources from which it solicits bids or proposals.51
3. Maintenance of the industrial base: It is necessary to award the contract to a
particular source or sources in order (1) to maintain a facility, producer,
manufacturer, or other supplier so that the maintained entity will be available to
furnish property or services in the case of a national emergency or to achieve
industrial mobilization, or (2) to establish or maintain an essential engineering,
research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other
nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center.
4. Requirements of international agreements: The terms of an international
agreement or treaty between the United States and a foreign government or
international organization, or the written directions of a foreign government
reimbursing a federal agency for the cost of procuring property or services,
effectively require the use of procedures other than competitive procedures.
5. Statutory authorization or acquisition of brand-name items for resale: A statute
expressly authorizes or requires that the procurement be made through another
executive agency or from a specified source, or the agencys need is for brandname commercial items for authorized resale.
6. National security: Disclosure of the agencys procurement needs would
compromise national security unless the agency is permitted to limit the number
of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals.
7. Necessary in the public interest: The head of an executive agency determines
that it is necessary in the public interest to use other than competitive procedures
49
10 U.S.C. 2304(c) & 41 U.S.C. 253(c).

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) & 41 U.S.C. 253(c).
51
An amendment made to CICA by Section 862 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009
limits the duration of contracts awarded in reliance on this exception. The term of such contracts may not exceed the
time necessary (1) to meet the unusual and compelling requirements of the work to be performed under the contract and
(2) for the executive agency to enter into another contract for the required goods and services through the use of
competitive procedures. Such contracts may not last longer than one year unless the head of the agency entering into
the contract determines that exceptional circumstances apply. P.L. 110-417, 862, 122 Stat. 4546 (Oct. 14, 2008).
50
11
in the procurement and notifies Congress in writing of this determination no less

than 30 days before the award of the contract.52
These exceptions cover common situations where competition is not possible, or where the
government values other objectives (e.g., maintaining the industrial base) more highly than full
and open competition. The first exception, for example, allows what are commonly known as
sole-source awards. By law, sole-source awards can be used only when there is a single
responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. Although
sole-source awards have been the subject of much reported concern recently, especially among
those worried about the alleged increase in their use since FY2000,53 they can help agencies to
efficiently meet their needs for goods and services when circumstances suggest there is little or
no possibility of competition. The first exception also encompasses agencies acceptance of
unsolicited research proposals, as well as follow-on contracts for continued development or
production of major systems. 54 The second exception covers many so-called contingency
contracting situations, when the government needs to enter into contracts quickly in response to
natural disasters or combat operations. The third exception addresses situations akin to dual
sourcing, when the government attempts to manage the industrial base by ensuring that
companies receive enough orders to stay in business. The fifth exception includes purchases that
agencies are required to make through Federal Prison Industries or qualified nonprofit agencies
for the blind or severely disabled. Table A-1 provides additional information on the
circumstances permitting other than full and open competition, including potential application of
and specific limits on these authorities.
Despite covering many common situations, CICAs exceptions do not grant agencies unfettered
discretion to contract for goods and services without using competitive procedures, however. This
is because other provisions of CICA impose several conditions on agencies ability to rely on the
exceptions permitting other than full and open competition. What is arguably the most important
of these conditionsthe requirement that agency contracting officials justify and obtain approval
for their use of other than competitive proceduresis discussed in more detail in the following
section. Other conditions (1) specify that poor agency planning cannot give rise to unusual and
compelling urgency;55 (2) bar agencies from obtaining through other agencies goods or services
that were not obtained in compliance with CICA;56 (3) prohibit agency heads from delegating
their authority to determine that use of other than competitive procedures is necessary in the
public interest;57 and (4) require agencies to request offers from as many potential sources as is
practicable under the circumstances whenever relying on the exceptions for unusual and
52
10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1)-(7) & 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)-(7).

See, e.g., U.S. House of Representatives, Comm. on Govt ReformMinority Staff, Special Investigations Division,
Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush Administration 9 (2006), available at
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060711103910-86046.pdf.
54
10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(A)-(B) & 41 U.S.C. 253(d)(1)(A)-(B). A follow-on contract is a new contract awarded on a
sole-source basis to a contractor that previously had a design or manufacturing contract for the same item, or previously
performed the services being procured. It differs from an option under an existing contract, which gives the government
a unilateral right to purchase additional supplies or services under a contract, or otherwise extend a contract.
55
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(5)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(5)(A). See, e.g., RBC Bearings Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-401661
(Oct. 27, 2009) (sustaining a protest of sole-source contract award because the procuring agencys own poor planning
resulted in the need to limit competition).
56
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(5)(B) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(5)(B).
57
10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(2) & 41 U.S.C. 253(d)(2).
53
12
compelling urgency or national security.58 The first condition is especially important because it
precludes agencies from waiting until near the end of the fiscal year to procure items and then
claiming unusual and compelling urgency because their appropriations are about to expire.59
Justifications & Approvals

CICAs requirement that contracting officers provide justifications of, and obtain approvals for,
all noncompetitive procurements conducted in reliance on a CICA exception further checks
agencies discretion in using noncompetitive procedures.60 Agencies can rely on the CICA
exceptions only when contracting officers justify the use of other than competitive procedures in
writing and certify the accuracy and completeness of their justifications.61 These justifications
must then be approved by agency officials of a higher rank than the contracting officer, with the
identity of the approving official determined by the expected value of the contract,62 as Table 1
illustrates.
Table 1. Approving Officials for Noncompetitive Contracts in General
Contract Value
Approving Official
Under $650,000
Contracting officers certification suffices unless higher

approval is required under agency procedures
Over $650,000 and below $12.5 million
Competition advocate for the procuring activity or another

official as provided under 48 C.F.R. 6.304(a)(3) or (4)
(authority cannot be delegated)
Over $12.5 million and below $62.5

million (all agencies other than DOD,
NASA, and the Coast Guard)
Head of the procuring activity or a delegate who, if a

member of the armed services, is a general or flag officer or,
if a civilian, is serving in a GS-16 or higher position or a
comparable position under another schedule
Over $12.5 million and below $85.5

million (DOD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard)
Over $62.5 million (all agencies other
than DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard)
Over $85.5 million (DOD, NASA, and
the Coast Guard)
Senior procurement executive of the agency designated

pursuant to Section 16(3) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (cannot be delegated, other than in
the case of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology & Logistics acting as the senior procurement
executive of DOD)
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on 48 C.F.R. 6.304
Written justifications and approvals must normally precede the contract award.63 They may
follow the award only when the agency relies on the exception for unusual and compelling
58
10 U.S.C. 2304(e) & 41 U.S.C. 253(e). Under the FAR, similar requirements apply to all the CICA exceptions,
although the statutory basis for these requirements is unclear. See 48 C.F.R. 6.301(d).
59
See, e.g., Competition in Contracting Act, supra note 14, at 16-17 (describing how agencies reportedly abused their
authority, under the pre-CICA competition requirements, to make noncompetitive procurements when competition is
impracticable in similar situations).
60
10 U.S.C. 2304(f) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f).
61
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(1)(A).
62
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(1)(B) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(1)(B).
63
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(2) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(2).
13
urgency, and, even then, the agency must have determined the existence of usual and compelling
urgency prior to making the award.64 Justifications can be omitted only when an agency (1) relies
upon an agency heads determination that it is necessary, in the public interest, to use other than
competitive procedures; (2) conducts a procurement under the authority of the Javits-WagnerODay Act, or makes competitive or certain noncompetitive awards under the authority of Section
8(a) of the Small Business Act;65 or (3) purchases brand-name items for authorized resale.66 The
omission of justifications when the agency relies upon the agency heads determination that it is
necessary, in the public interest, to use other than competitive procedures can be explained, in
part, by the requirement that agency heads must themselves document the existence of such
circumstances in writing and notify Congress. Purchase of brand-name items for authorized resale
involves purchases for use in commissaries or similar facilities, where the purchased articles are
desired or preferred by customers of the selling activities.67 It does not include agencies
purchase of brand-name commercial items for their own use. 68
Justifications must include (1) a description of agency needs; (2) an identification of the statutory
exception upon which the agency relied and a demonstration of the reasons for using the
exception that is based upon the proposed contractors qualifications or the nature of the
procurement; (3) a determination that the anticipated cost will be fair and reasonable; (4) a
description of any market survey conducted, or a statement of the reasons for not conducting a
market survey; (5) a listing of any sources that expressed interest in the procurement in writing;
and (6) a statement of any actions that the agency may take to remove or overcome barriers to
competition before subsequent procurements.69
CICA originally required agencies to make their justifications for noncompetitive awards, as well
as any related information, available to the general public under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), 70 but it has since been amended to require that justifications and approvals be posted
on FedBizOpps (http://www.fedbizopps.gov) within 14 days of contract award.71 Agencies are
also required, under CICA, to publish notices regarding certain noncompetitive contracts that they
propose to award on FedBizOpps prior to their award.72 These notices identify the intended
recipient of the noncompetitive contract award and state the agencies reasons for making a
noncompetitive award.73 Because notice of these proposed awards precedes the awards, other
contractors could submit proposals to the agency or protest the proposed award.
64
48 C.F.R. 6.303-1(d).
Justifications, approvals, and notices are, however, required when agencies make sole-source awards valued in
excess of $20 million under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. See P.L. 111-84, 811, 123 Stat.
2405-06 (Oct. 28, 2009).
66
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(2)(A)-(E) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(2)(A)-(D).
67
48 C.F.R. 6.302-5(c)(3).
68
Such purchases are governed by other authorities. See 48 C.F.R. 11.105.
69
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(3)(A)-(F) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(3)(A)-(F).
70
P.L. 98-369, 2711, 98 Stat. 1178 (civilian agencies); id., at 2723, 98 Stat. 1190 (defense agencies).
71
P.L. 110-181, 844, 122 Stat. 236-39 (Oct. 14, 2008). When the noncompetitive award is made on the basis of
unusual and compelling urgency, agencies have up to 30 days after the award to post it on FedBizOpps.
72
10 U.S.C. 2304(f)(1)(C) & 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(1)(C). See generally 41 U.S.C. 416(b)(5) (notice requirements).
73
Id.
65
14
Special Simplified Procedures for Small Purchases

In addition to authorizing the use of noncompetitive procedures in certain circumstances, CICA
authorizes the use of special simplified procedures when agencies make small purchases.74
CICAs drafters included this provision because they recognized that the costs of conducting
competitions can exceed the savings resulting from competition when agencies procure items
with low prices.75 CICA itself defined a small purchase as one whose expected value was less
than $25,000,76 but was later amended to include purchases whose expected value was below the
simplified acquisition threshold (currently, $150,000).77 Moreover, since 1996, under an
amendment to CICA, agencies have also had authority to use simplified acquisition procedures in
purchasing commercial items whose expected value exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold
but is below $6.5 million (or $12 million in the case of goods or services purchased in support of
contingency operations, or for defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or
radiological attack).78 Agencies can rely on this latter authority only when their contracting
officers reasonably expect, based upon market research and the nature of the goods or services
sought, that offers will include only commercial items.79 This authority to use simplified
procedures in purchases of commercial items valued at between $150,000 and $6.5 million is
temporary, under what the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) calls a test program, and will
expire on January 1, 2012, unless renewed. 80 CICA prohibits agencies from dividing proposed
purchases in excess of the small purchase threshold into several purchases in order to take
advantage of the simplified procedures, and it requires agencies to promote competition to the
maximum extent practicable when using simplified procedures.81
CICA otherwise leaves the articulation of the simplified acquisition procedures to the FAR, which
prescribes somewhat different regulations for acquiring different prices and types of goods and
services (i.e., commercial or noncommercial). See Figure 2. Under the FAR, purchases whose
74
10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(A).

See, e.g., Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, supra note 15, at 226. For example, spending $50 to achieve full
and open competition saves money when the competition reduces by 10% the price of goods or services costing
$100,000, but not when it reduces by 10% the price of goods or services costing $10.
76
P.L. 98-369 at 2711 and 2723.
77
10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(1)(A) & 41 U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(A). The simplified acquisition threshold is presently set at
$150,000 unless there is an emergency. See 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (increasing the threshold to $300,000, for contracts to be
awarded or performed within the United States, and $1 million for contracts to be awarded or performed outside the
United States, in certain emergencies).
78
48 C.F.R. 13.500(a) & (e).
79
10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(1)(B) & 41 U.S.C. 253(g)(1)(B).
80
48 C.F.R. 13.500(d). FARA created this authority, which has been repeatedly renewed. See P.L. 104-106, at 4202
(establishing the authority); National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000, P.L. 106-65, 806 (extension through
January 1, 2002); National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-107, 823 (extension through January 1,
2003); Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003, P.L. 107-314, 812 (extension through January 1,
2004); National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004, P.L. 108-136, 1442 (extension through January 1, 2006); and
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005, P.L. 108-375, 817 (extension through January 1,
2008); National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008, P.L. 110-181, 822 (extension through January 1, 2010);
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, P.L. 111-84, 816 (extension through January 1, 2012). The Bush
Administrations reliance on this authority proved controversial, but the Obama Administration has relied on it. See
Dollars, Not Sense, supra note 53, at 18; Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Initial
Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, at 42 (Feb. 18, 2009), available at
http://www.recovery.gov/files/Initial%20Recovery%20Act%20Implementing%20Guidance.pdf.
81
10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(3) & 41 U.S.C. 253(g)(4).
75
15
expected value is below the simplified acquisition threshold ($150,000) are further subdivided
into (1) those below the micropurchase threshold (generally $3,000) and (2) those above it.82
When making micropurchases, or purchases at or below $3,000, agencies are to promote
competition, to at least a limited degree, by distributing their purchases equitably among
qualified suppliers [t]o the extent practicable.83 They may make micropurchases without
soliciting competitive quotations only if the contracting officer, or other duly appointed official,
considers the price to be reasonable. 84 When purchases are above the micropurchase threshold but
below the simplified acquisition threshold, agencies shall use simplified acquisition procedures
to the maximum extent practicable.85 These purchases are set aside for small businesses, 86
making them full and open competitions after the exclusion of sources under CICA. In such
purchases, and in purchases of commercial items whose expected value exceeds the simplified
acquisition threshold but is below $6.5 million (or $12 million in emergencies), agencies must
promote competition to the maximum extent practicable to obtain supplies and services from the
source whose offer is the most advantageous to the Government considering the administrative
cost of the purchase.87 This generally means that agencies must consider solicitation of at least
three sources, two of which were not included in the previous solicitation.88 Contracting officers
are prohibited from soliciting quotations based on personal preferences or restricting solicitations
to suppliers of well-known and widely distributed makes or brands.89
82
The micropurchase threshold can be lower or higher than $3,000, depending on the goods or services acquired and
the circumstances of the acquisition. Micropurchases for construction services subject to the Davis-Bacon Act or other
services subject to the Service Contract Act have lower limits: $2,000 and $2,500, respectively. Those for goods or
services that the agency head has determined will be used to support a contingency operation or facilitate defense
against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack have higher limits: $15,000 in the case of
contracts to be awarded or performed, or purchases to be made, inside the United States and $30,000 in the case of
contracts to be awarded or performed, or purchases to be made, outside the United States. 48 C.F.R. 13.201(g)(1)(i)(ii).
83
48 C.F.R. 13.202(a)(1).
84
48 C.F.R. 13.202(a)(2).
85
48 C.F.R. 13.003(a). This provision does not apply if agencies can meet their requirements using (1) required
sources of supply under Part 8 of the FAR (addressing Federal Prison Industries; the Committee for Purchase from
People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, and FSS contracts); (2) existing indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
contracts; or (3) other existing contracts. 48 C.F.R. 13.003(a)(1)-(3).
86
48 C.F.R. 13.003(b)(1).
87
48 C.F.R. 13.104.
88
48 C.F.R. 13.104(b). When not providing notice of proposed contract actions and solicitation information through
the government-wide point of entry, FedBizOpps, agencies can ordinarily obtain the maximum practicable
competition ... by soliciting quotations or offers from sources within the local trade area.
89
48 C.F.R. 13.104(a)(1)-(2).
16
Figure 2. Simplified Acquisition Procedures: Competition Requirements at Various

Price Thresholds
Source: Congressional Research Service
Sole-source solicitations for purchases below the simplified acquisition threshold are permissible
only if contracting officers determine that the circumstances of the contract action are such that
only one source can be reasonably deemed available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing
agreements, brand-name goods, industrial mobilization).90 Sole-source solicitations for purchases
of commercial items whose expected costs exceed the simplified acquisition threshold are
permissible only if (1) they are justified in writing; (2) they are approved at the levels specified in
Table 2; and (3) notice of the proposed award is provided at the government-wide point of entry,
FedBizOpps.
Table 2. Approving Officials for Noncompetitive Contracts Under the Simplified
Acquisition Procedures
Contract Value
Approving Official
Over $150,000 and below $650,000
Contracting officers certification serves as approval unless agency

regulations require higher-level approval
Over $650,000 and below $12.5 million
Competition advocate for the procuring activity, or an official

described in 48 C.F.R. 6.304(a)(3)-(4) (cannot be delegated)
Over $12.5 million and below $62.5 million (all

Head of the procuring activity, or an official described in 48 C.F.R.
agencies other than DOD, NASA, and the Coast 6.304(a)(3)-(4) (cannot be delegated)
Guard)
Over $12.5 million and below $85.5 million
(DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard)
Over $62.5 million (all agencies other than
DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard)
Official described in 48 C.F.R. 6.304(a)(4) (cannot be delegated

other than as provided in 48 C.F.R. 6.304(a)(4))
Over $85.5 million (DOD, NASA, and the Coast

Guard)
90
48 C.F.R. 13.106-1(b)(1).
17
Table 3.Types of Competition Under CICA

Competition Type
Full and Open Competition
Includes
Sealed bids
Competitive proposals
Other competitive procedures (e.g., GSAs Federal Supply Schedule)
Full and open competition after the exclusion of sources
Dual sourcing
Set-asides for small businessesa
Permissibly Noncompetitive
Sole source (including sole-source awards to small businesses)a

Unusual and compelling urgency
Maintenance of the industrial base
International agreements
Statutory requirements or brand-name items for resale
National security
Necessary in the public interest
Special Simplified Procedures
Micropurchases (noncommercial or commercial items)

Purchases above the micropurchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition
threshold ($150,000) (noncommercial or commercial items) set aside for small
businesses
Purchases of commercial items whose prices are between $150,000 and $6.5 million
(or $12 million in emergencies)

a.
CICA classifies contracts with small businesses in two different ways, depending upon whether the contract
is a sole-source award. Under CICA, sole-source awards to small businesses are permissible in light of the
circumstances permitting other than full and open competition, while other awards to small businesses
result from full and open competition after exclusion of sources.
Other Competition Requirements

In keeping with its drafters belief that effective competition in government procurement involves
more than just the mechanisms that agencies use to solicit offers, CICA also contains other
provisions that promote competition by, among other things, barring agencies from using
restrictive specifications and requiring them to give advance notice of upcoming solicitations.91
These provisions are not the primary focus of this report, but are briefly summarized below in
order to provide a complete sense of CICAs competition requirements.
1. Planning and solicitation requirements: Under CICA, agencies must specify
their needs and solicit bids or offers in a manner designed to achieve full and
open competition; use advanced procurement planning and market research; and
develop specifications in such a manner as is necessary to obtain full and open
competition.92 Specifications may be stated in terms of function, performance,
91
See, e.g., Competition in Contracting Act, supra note 14, at 2 (It is important to understand ... that competition is not
a procurement procedure, but an objective which a procedure is designed to attain.).
92
10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) & 41 U.S.C. 253a(a)(1)(A)-(C).
18
or design requirements, but can include restrictive provisions or conditions only

to the extent necessary to satisfy agency needs or as authorized by law. 93 These
requirements derive from the fact that competitive mechanisms for submitting
bids or offers are of limited effectiveness if agencies can craft their procurement
specifications in such a way as to effectively exclude contractors from the pool of
potential offerors.94
2. Evaluation and award requirements: Agencies must evaluate sealed bids and
competitive proposals based solely on the factors specified in the solicitation.95
This requirement supports the competitive mechanisms for submitting bids and
offers by ensuring that agencies properly consider bids and offers once they are
received, rather than award contracts to favored companies on the basis of factors
not disclosed to other competitors.
3. Competition advocates: CICA requires the head of each executive agency to
designate, both for the agency as a whole and for each procuring activity within
the agency, one officer or employee to serve as the advocate for competition.96
Agency competition advocates are responsible, among other things, for
challenging barriers to and promoting full and open competition in agency
procurement activities. 97 CICA initially required agency competition advocates to
make annual reports to each chamber of Congress identifying actions the agency
intended to take to increase competition for contracts and reduce the number and
value of noncompetitive contracts.98 However, FASA removed this reporting
requirement. 99
4. Procurement notices: Under CICA, agencies are generally required to publish
procurement notices announcing upcoming IFBs and RFPs for contracts
exceeding $25,000 and for likely subcontracts on awarded contracts exceeding
$25,000.100 CICA also specifies that agencies may not issue solicitations earlier
than 15 days after the notice is published, or establish a deadline for submission
of bids or offers earlier than 30 days after the solicitation is issued.101 These
93
10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) & 41 U.S.C. 253a(a)(2)(B) & (3)(A)-(C).

See, e.g., Competition in Contracting Act, supra note 14, at 19 (describing specifications as the cornerstone of
competitive procurement because they serve initially as the fundamental expression of the agencys need and, in the
contract award, as the baseline for the evaluation of offers.).
95
10 U.S.C. 2305(b); 41 U.S.C. 253b.
96
41 U.S.C. 418.
97
Id.
98
Id.
99
P.L. 103-355 1031 (repealing subsection (c) of 10 U.S.C. 2318 and of 41 U.S.C. 419, which required annual
reports on competition from defense and civilian agencies, respectively). Paul A. Denett, the Administrator of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Bush Administration, required similar reports, albeit for agencies
chief acquisition officers and senior procurement executives, not for Congress. Executive Office of the President,
OMB, OFPP, Enhancing Competition in Federal Acquisition: Memorandum, May 31, 2007, available at
http://www.dhhs.gov/oamp/policies/competitionmemo053107.pdf (Your competition advocate should provide a
written report to you with appropriate analysis, including trend analysis, and recommendations. The report should be
completed by December 20, 2007, and annually thereafter.). The Obama Administration does not appear to have
continued this practice, although it has implemented other policies intended to reduce the number of noncompetitive
awards. See supra note 5.
100
41 U.S.C. 416.
101
Id.
94
19
requirements promote competition by ensuring that would-be offerors have

ample notice of proposed agency procurement actions and adequate time to
prepare their offers. Notices were originally published in Commerce Business
Daily, but are now posted online at FedBizOpps.102
Competition Requirements for Task and Delivery

Order Contracts
FASA supplemented CICA by, among other things, articulating competition requirements for task
order and delivery order (TO/DO) contracts. TO/DO contracts are contracts for services or goods,
respectively, that do not procure or specify a firm quantity of supplies (other than a minimum or
maximum quantity), but rather provide[] for the issuance of orders for the delivery of supplies
during the period of the contract.103 Because the time of delivery and the quantity of goods or
services to be delivered are not specified (outside of stated maximums or minimums) in TO/DO
contracts, such contracts are sometimes referred to as indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
(ID/IQ) contracts.104 TO/DO contracts are also known as single-award or multiple-award
contracts, a designation based upon the number of firmsone or more than one, respectively
able to compete for task or delivery orders under the contract.105 Some commentators further refer
to single-award TO/DO contracts as monopoly contracts,106 but such usage obscures the fact
that single-award TO/DO contracts are themselves awarded competitively, even if task or delivery
orders under them are not, and are of limited duration. 107
Under FASA, agencies are effectively subject to CICA when awarding TO/DO contracts and can
use other than competitive procedures only when one of the seven exceptions to full and open
competition applies and there are the requisite justifications and approvals.108 FASA also
establishes a preference for multiple-award contracts by requiring agencies to use them, as
opposed to single-award contracts, to the maximum extent practicable.109 Moreover, FASA
requires agencies using multiple-award contracts to provide contractors a fair opportunity to be
considered when issuing task or delivery orders in excess of $3,000 unless
(1) the agencys need for the services or property is of such unusual urgency that providing
such opportunity to all such contractors would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling that
need;
102
Id.
48 C.F.R. 16.501-1.
104
See 48 C.F.R. 16.501-2(a).
105
Multiple-award task order contracts are sometimes also referred to as MATOCs.
106
See, e.g., Dollars, Not Sense, supra note 53, at 13.
107
Federal contracts are normally for one year, but can be extended to five years through agencies use of options. 48
C.F.R. 17.204(e) (Unless otherwise approved in accordance with agency procedures, the total of the basic and option
periods shall not exceed 5 years in the case of services, and the total of the basic and option quantities shall not exceed
the requirement for 5 years in the case of supplies.).
108
10 U.S.C. 2304a(c) & 41 U.S.C. 253h(c).
109
10 U.S.C. 2304a(d)(3) & 41 U.S.C. 253h(d)(3).
103
20
(2) only one such contractor is capable of providing the services or property required at the
level of quality required because the services or property ordered are unique or highly
specialized;
(3) the task or delivery order should be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of
economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to a task or delivery order already
issued on a competitive basis; or
(4) it is necessary to place the order with a particular contractor in order to satisfy a
minimum guarantee.110
FASA did not, however, subject the issuance of task or delivery orders under TO/DO contracts to
CICA, and, even today, such orders remain outside the CICA framework. 111 FASA further
requires each agency issuing TO/DO contracts to designate a task and delivery order
ombudsman to review contractors complaints regarding TO/DO contracts and ensure that all
contractors holding a multiple-award TO/DO contract have a fair opportunity to be considered
for orders.112 Finally, FASA grants the Government Accountability Office (GAO) jurisdiction
over protests alleging that the orders increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the
contract.113
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (NDAA 08) further strengthened the
competition requirements for TO/DO contracts established by FASA. See Figure 3. The NDAA
08 limits agencies ability to use single-award TO/DO contracts by requiring that agency heads
make the following determinations, in writing, before awarding a single-award TO/DO contract
whose expected value would exceed $103 million, including options:
(i) the task or delivery orders expected under the contract are so integrally related that only a
single source can reasonably perform the work;
(ii) the contract provides only for firm, fixed-price task or delivery orders for (I) products for
which unit prices are established in the contract or (II) services for which prices are
established in the contract for the specific tasks to be performed;
(iii) only one source is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to
the government; or
(iv) because of exceptional circumstances, it is necessary in the public interest to award the
contract to a single source.114
110
10 U.S.C. 2304c(b)(1)-(4) & 41 U.S.C. 253j(b)(1).

48 C.F.R. 6.001(e)-(f).
112
10 U.S.C. 2304c(e) & 41 U.S.C. 253j(e).
113
10 U.S.C. 2304c(d) & 41 U.S.C. 253j(d).
111
114
P.L. 110-181, 843, 122 Stat. 236-39 (Oct. 14, 2008). Agency heads must notify Congress within 30 days after
making a determination to award a single-award TO/DO contract in excess of $103 million. P.L. 110-181 addressed the
TO/DO contracts of both defense and civilian agencies. An earlier law, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002, had addressed only DOD TO/DO contracts. This law required that the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) be updated to (1) require that issuance of orders for services in excess of $100,000
under multiple award contracts be competitive unless a CICA exception applies and the agency issues a written
justification and (2) specify what competitive means. See P.L. 107-107, 803, 115 Stat. 1179 (Dec. 28, 2001).
21
The NDAA 08 also specifies what constitutes a fair opportunity to be considered in

competitions for orders in excess of $5.5 million under multiple-award TO/DO contracts. Under
the NDAA, for contractors to have a fair opportunity, agencies must provided them with (1) a
notice of the task or delivery order that includes a clear statement of the agencys requirements;
(2) a reasonable period of time to provide a proposal in response to the notice; (3) disclosure of
the significant factors and subfactors (including cost or price) that the agency expects to consider
in evaluating proposals and their relative importance; (4) a written statement documenting the
basis for the award and the relative importance of quality and price or cost factors, if the award is
to be made on a best-value basis; and (5) an opportunity for post-award debriefing.115
Finally, the NDAA 08 authorized GAO to hear protests alleging improprieties in agencies award
of task and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million.116 When granting such authority,
Congress included a sunset provision, stating that the subsection granting this authority
would be in effect for three years, beginning on the date that it is 120 days after [its] date of
enactment (i.e., May 27, 2011).117 The 111th Congress enacted legislation which extended this
date as to the orders of defense agencies. 118 Similar legislation was introduced in the 112th
Congress (e.g., H.R. 899, S. 498), but not enacted before May 27, 2011.
In a protest of an order placed under a civilian agency contract heard in June 2011, the
Department of Defense (DOD) asserted that, because Congress had not enacted legislation
extending the sunset date as to the orders of civilian agencies, GAOs jurisdiction to hear protests
concerning task or delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million issued under civilian agency
contracts expired on May 27, 2011.119 GAO disagreed, finding that the sunset provision applied to
the entire subsection, not just the part of it authorizing GAO to hear protests of task and delivery
orders valued in excess of $10 million.120 Under GAOs reading, what expired in May 2011 was
the provision of FASA limiting its jurisdiction over task order protests to those that increased
the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract, as amended by the NDAA for FY2008,
which expanded GAOs jurisdiction to include protests of orders valued in excess of $10
million. 121 According to GAO, the expiration of this provision means that it may hear protests
concerning orders of any value under civilian agency contracts, regardless of whether they
increase the scope, period or maximum value of the contract.122 It remains to be seen whether the
115
Id.
Id.
117
Id. at 843(a), 122 Stat. 237.
118
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, P.L. 111-383, 825, 124 Stat. 4270 (Jan. 7,
2011) (codified at 10 U.S.C. 2304c(e) (Paragraph (1)(B) and paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not be in effect
after September 30, 2016.).
119
Technatomy Corp., B-405130 (June 14, 2011). GAO agreed with DODs argument that the law governing protests
of orders issued by civilian agencies should apply here because the order in question was issued under a multiple-award
contract awarded by the General Services Administration. However, it rejected DODs argument that the decision
should be based upon the law in effect at the time when the protest was heard, as opposed to the time when the protest
was filed. For more on interagency contracting, which allows one agency to place orders under the contracts of another,
see generally CRS Report R40814, Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations
Law, by Kate M. Manuel and Brian T. Yeh.
120
Technatomy Corp., B-405130 (June 14, 2011).
121
Id.
122
Id.
116
22
executive branch adopts GAOs interpretation of FASA, as amended by the NDAA for 08, 123 or
how a court might view any challenge to GAOs interpretation of these statutes.124
Figure 3.TO/DO Contracts: Competition Requirements at Various Price Thresholds
Legislative Initiatives
The 111th Congress enacted several bills addressing competition in contracting. Such bills
generally took one of two very different approaches, either promoting competition and limiting
agencies ability to make noncompetitive awards, or restricting competition to promote policy
goals, such as contracting locally, that are more highly valued than full and open competition, at
least in certain circumstances. The statutes that prompted competition did so in various ways,
including by (1) subjecting certain earmarks or congressionally directed spending item[s] to
the competition requirements normally applicable to federal contracts;125 (2) precluding defense
123
Due to the separation of powers doctrine, executive branch agencies are not bound by recommendations contained
in GAO protests, such as this one. See generally CRS Report R40228, GAO Bid Protests: An Overview of Time Frames
and Procedures, by Kate M. Manuel and Moshe Schwartz.
124
It is also unclear how a court might come to hear such a challenge, given that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks
jurisdiction over protests involving task and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. See DataMill, Inc. v.
United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 740 (Mar. 5, 2010). However, because the fair opportunity provisions are terms of the
contract, they could potentially be disputed before federal courts. See, e.g., Steven W. Feldman and Raymond
Fioravanti, Contract Dispute Or Bid Protest? The Delex Systems Dilemma, 39 Pub. Cont. L. J. 483 (2010).
125
See, e.g., Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-118, 8121, 123 Stat. 3457 (Dec. 19, 2009)
(Each congressionally directed spending item specified in this Act or the explanatory statement regarding this Act that
is also identified in S.Rept. 111-74 and intended for award to a for-profit entity shall be subject to acquisition
regulations for full and open competition on the same basis as each spending item intended for a for-profit entity that is
contained in the budget request of the President.); Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-80, 747, 123 Stat. 2131 (Oct. 21, 2009) (Specific projects
contained in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying this Act
(H.Rept. 111-181) that are considered congressional earmarks for purposes of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, when intended to be awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under a full and open
competition.). The Department of Defense, at least, has construed the relevant sections of its appropriations bill (P.L.
111-118) as requiring that earmarks sponsored solely by House members be fully and openly competed, while allowing
earmarks sponsored by Senate members to be awarded via a small business set-aside or in reliance on one of the CICA
(continued...)
23
agencies from awarding certain noncompetitive contracts based on unsolicited research

proposals;126 (3) requiring the Department of Defense to take specific steps to foster
competition in certain large or high-profile procurements (e.g., major defense acquisition
programs, littoral combat ships, future surface combatants);127 (4) prohibiting specific agencies
from making payments on, or significantly extending or expanding, certain noncompetitive
contracts;128 (5) requiring governmental agencies that are otherwise exempted from federal
procurement laws to comply with CICA;129 (6) requiring that agencies Inspectors General review
selected contracts awarded through other than full and open competition;130 (7) requiring studies
or additional reporting on the use of authorities allowing other than full and open competition,
including the effect of such use on competition;131 and (8) requiring justifications, approvals, and
(...continued)
exceptions. See Office of the Secretary of Defense, Full and Open Competition Requirement for Congressionally
Directed Spending Items and Earmarks Intended for For-Profit Entities, June 6, 2010, available at
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA002446-10-DPAP.pdf.
126
P.L. 111-118, 8039. Defense agencies may generally award such contracts only when agency officials determine
that (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one source is fully qualified to perform the work; (2) the
purpose of the contract is to explore an unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or technological
promise, represents the product of original thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or (3) the purpose
of the contract is to take advantage of unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a specific concern, or to
ensure that a new product or idea of a specific concern is given financial support.
127
See, e.g., Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, P.L. 111-23, 202(a)(1), 123 Stat. 1720-21 (May 22, 2009)
(calling for the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program
includes measures to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at both the prime contract level and the
subcontract level throughout the life-cycle of [the] program as a means to improve contractor performance.);
Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009, P.L. 111-67, 2, 123 Stat. 2008 (Sept. 30, 2009) (stating that plans
and programs undertaken to carry out the purposes of this Act should be undertaken with due consideration for
promoting competition); National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, P.L. 111-84, 121, 123 Stat. 2211 (Oct.
28, 2009) (calling for the Defense Department to ensure that the governments rights in technical data for the littoral
combat ship are sufficient to permit the government to conduct a competition for a second shipyard as soon as
practicable); id. at 125, 123 Stat. 2216 (calling for the technology roadmap for future surface combatants and fleet
modernization to foster competition); id. at 353, 123 Stat. 2264 (demonstration programs with open architecture to
promote competition, among other things); id. at 805, 123 Stat. 2403 (directing the Secretary of Defense to provide
guidance on life-cycle management and other issues related to major weapons systems that maximizes competition); id.
at 1021, 123 Stat. 2445 (expressing the sense of Congress that the Navy can take other measures to acquire new ships
and maintain the fleet, including maximizing competition or the option of competition).
128
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 111-8, Title III, 301(a), 123 Stat. 625 (Mar. 11, 2009) (None of the
funds in this or any other appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009 or any previous fiscal year may be used to make
payments for a noncompetitive management and operating contract, or a contract for environmental remediation or
waste management in excess of $100,000,000 in annual funding at a current or former management and operating
contract site or facility, or to award a significant extension or expansion to an existing management and operating
contract, or other contract covered by this section, unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures or the
Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation.).
129
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, P.L. 111-203, 319, 124 Stat. 1528 (July 21, 2010)
(Notwithstanding the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) or any other
provision of law (except the full and open competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act), the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency may(1) enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and acquire real
property (or property interest) as the Comptroller deems necessary to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and (2) hold, maintain, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the property (or
property interest) acquired under paragraph (1).).
130
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-83, 521, 123 Stat. 2171 (Oct. 28, 2009).
131
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, P.L. 111-383, 844 (requiring GAO to
conduct a study of DODs reliance on the CICA exception for national security); P.L. 111-84, 819, 123 Stat. 2409-10;
P.L. 111-5, 1552, 123 Stat. 302 (Feb. 17, 2009) (A summary of any contract awarded with such funds that is not
fixed-price and not awarded using competitive procedures shall be posted in a special section of the website established
(continued...)
24
notices for sole-source awards in excess of $20 million made under the authority of Section 8(a)
of the Small Business Act, which had previously been exempt from such requirements. 132 Other
statutes, in contrast, authorized agencies to restrict competition to promote awards to products,
services, or sources from Afghanistan,133 countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan,134 or local nonprofit or cooperative entities. 135
Legislation reflecting concerns about competition may be reintroduced in the 112th Congress.136
Members of the 112th Congress may also review agency compliance with existing competition
requirements and exceptions thereto.
(...continued)
in section 1526.).
132
P.L. 111-84, 811, 123 Stat. 2405-06.
133
Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-32, 1102(c)(2), 123 Stat. 1896-97 (June 24, 2009) (authorizing
agencies to use funds appropriated under Section 1102 of the act, or under prior acts appropriating funds for the
Department of State, foreign operations and related programs to conduct procurements in which competition is limited
to products, services, or sources from Afghanistan; noncompetitive procedures are used to award a contract to sources
from Afghanistan; or a preference is provided for products, services, or sources from Afghanistan). The act defines
products, services, and sources from Afghanistan, but does not specify what preferences are permissible.
134
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010, P.L. 111-84, 801, 123 Stat. 2399-400 (authorizing the Secretary
of Defense to set aside procurements for products or services from one or more countries along a major route of
supply to Afghanistan or otherwise grant preference to them).
135
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-88, Department
Wide Programs, Wildfire Management, 123 Stat. 2923 (Oct. 30, 2009) (authorizing the Department of Interior to award
contracts for hazardous fuel reduction activities notwithstanding CICA, provided that the department obtains the
maximum practicable competition among local private nonprofit or cooperative entities; Youth Conservation Corps
crews; small or micro-businesses; or other entities that will hire and train locally 50% or more of the workforce).
136
Examples of legislation that was introduced, but not enacted, in the 111th Congress, include Coast Guard
Acquisition Reform Act, H.R. 1665, 101 (requiring that any lead systems integrators use full and open competition in
awarding contracts); Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2011, S. 3607, 522 (requiring the DHS
inspector general to review contracts awarded via other than full and open competition); Department of Veterans
Affairs Acquisition Improvement Act of 2009, H.R. 4221, 7 (establishing a complaint process for agencies use of
restricted competitions); Enhanced Oversight of State and Local Economic Recovery Act, S. 1064, 3 (requiring the
Administrator of the General Services Administration to ensure maximum competition for task and delivery orders
when state and local governments use the Federal Supply Schedules); GROWTH Act of 2010, H.R. 5191, 9
(requiring the Millennium Challenge Corporation to ensure that contracts and employment opportunities resulting from
assistance provided to governments of developing countries be awarded via a fair and equitable open competition
process); HAITI Act, H.R. 4952, 94 (requiring the inspector general to report on expenditures for Haiti
reconstruction, including contracts that are awarded using other than full and open competition); Level Playing Field
Contracting Act of 2010, S. 3101, 10 (requiring GAO to report on contractors experiences with competition in
government contracting); National Health Information Technology and Privacy Amendment, S. 444, 2 & 5
(requiring that a federally chartered corporation to be formed under the act maintain effective competition, including
the use of competitive bidding where appropriate in procuring goods or services); Natural Disaster Fairness in
Contracting Act, S. 1420 (barring agencies from relying on the exceptions for circumstances involving maintenance of
the industrial base; the requirements of international agreements; and actions necessary in the public interest when
awarding contracts valued at $5 million or more to procure property or services in connection with natural disaster
reconstruction efforts, as well as requiring the President or his or her designee to approve in writing noncompetitive
contracts for natural disaster reconstruction efforts); Transparency in Government Act of 2010, H.R. 4983 (requiring
USASpending.gov to include information on the extent of competition and the authorization for noncompetitive
awards); Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, H.R. 5850
(recipients of certain grants to conduct procurements in a way providing for full and open competition).
25
Appendix. Circumstances Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition

Under CICA
Table A-1. Potential Applications and Limitations
Circumstance
Sole source for goods or
services
Potential Applications
Limitations
Authority here to be used, if appropriate, in preference to that allowing

procurement contracts necessary in the public interest
Contracts must be supported by written justifications and

approvals
Reasonable basis to conclude that the agencys minimum needs can only be
satisfied by (1) unique supplies or services available from only one source or
supplier with unique capabilities, or (2) for DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard,
unique supplies or services available from only one or a limited number of
sources or from only one or a limited number of suppliers with unique
capabilities
Synopses of proposed contract actions must be published,

and any resultant bids, proposals, etc. must be considered
Existence of rights in data, patent rights, copyrights, or trade secrets; control of

raw materials; or similar circumstances make supplies and services available from
only one source
An acquisition that uses a brand name description or other

purchase description to specify a particular brand name,
product, or feature of a product peculiar to one
manufacturer does not provide for full and open
competition regardless of the number of sources solicited
When acquiring utility services, if circumstances dictate that only one supplier can
furnish the service, or when the contract is for construction of a part of a utility
system and the utility company is the only source available to work on the
system
When the agency head determines, in accordance with an agencys
standardization program, that only specified makes and models of equipment or
parts satisfy the agencys needs for additional units or replacement items, and
only one source is available
Unusual and compelling
urgency
Unusual and compelling urgency precludes full and open competition, and delay in
award of a contract would result in serious financial or other injury to the
government

approvals; justifications may be made and approved after
contract award when preparation and approval prior to
award would unreasonably delay the acquisition
Agencies must still request offers from as many potential
sources as practicable under the circumstances
Maintenance of the industrial

base
Keep vital facilities or suppliers in business or make them available in the event of
a national emergency
Train selected suppliers in the furnishing of critical supplies or services; prevent
the loss of a suppliers ability and employees skills; or maintain active engineering,
CRS-26

approvals
Circumstance
Limitations
research, or development work

Maintain properly balanced sources of supply for meeting the requirements of
acquisition programs in the interest of industrial mobilization
Limit competition for current acquisition of selected supplies or services
approved for production planning under the DOD Industrial Preparedness
Program to planned producers with whom industrial preparedness agreements
for those items exist, or limit award to offerors who agree to enter into
industrial preparedness agreements
Create or maintain the required domestic capability for production of critical
supplies by limiting competition to items manufactured in the United States or its
outlying areas or Canada
Continue in production contractors that are manufacturing critical items, when
there would otherwise be a break in production
Divide current production requirements among two or more contractors to
provide for an adequate industrial mobilization base
Establish or maintain an essential capability for theoretical analyses, exploratory
studies, or experiments in any field of science or technology
Establish or maintain an essential capability for engineering or developmental
work calling for the practical application of investigative findings and theories of a
scientific or technical nature
Acquiring the services of either an expert to use in litigation or neutral persons
(e.g., mediators, arbitrators) to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes
Requirements of
international agreements
When a contemplated acquisition is to be reimbursed by a foreign country that

requires that the product be obtained from a particular firm as specified in official
written directions
Except for DOD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, contracts

must be supported by written justifications and approvals
When a contemplated acquisition is for services to be performed, or supplies to

be used, in the sovereign territory of another country and the terms of a treaty
or agreement specify or limit the sources to be solicited
Statutory authorization or
acquisition of brand-name
items for authorized resale
Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) (18 U.S.C. 4124)

Qualified Nonprofit Agencies for the Blind or other Severely Disabled (41 U.S.C.
46-48c)
Government Printing and Binding (44 U.S.C. 501-504, 1121)
Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program (15 U.S.C. 637)
CRS-27
Not to be used when a provision of law requires an agency

to award a new contract to a specified non-federal
government entity unless the law specifically identifies the
entity involved; refers to 10 U.S.C. 2304(j) (for the armed
services) or section 303(h) of the FPASA (for civilian
agencies); and states that award shall be made in
contravention of the procedures in CICA
Circumstance
Sole source awards under the HUBZone Act of 1997 (15 U.S.C. 657a)
Sole source awards under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 657f)
Limitations
approvals unless the statute expressly requires that
procurement be made from specified sources
May be used only for purchases of brand-name commercial
items for resale through commissaries or similar facilities
National security
Disclosure of the Governments needs would compromise the national security
Not to be used merely because the acquisition is classified,

or because access to classified matter will be necessary to
submit a proposal or perform the contract
approvals
Synopses of proposed contract actions must be published
Agencies must request offers from as many potential
sources as is practicable under the circumstances
Necessary in the public

interest
Used when none of the other authorities apply
Need written determination of the agency head; authority

may not be delegated
Congress must be notified in writing of such determination
not less than 30 days before award of the contract
This determination and finding shall not be made on a class
basis
CRS-28
Author Contact Information

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney
kmanuel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4477
29

1083 Vine St. No 503
Tel: 001 707 385 9344
June 28, 2014
BY REGISTERED EMAIL
General Counsel
Government Accounting Office
441 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20548
Email: Protests@gao.gov
Attn: Procurement Law Control Group, Room 1139
RE:
Pre Award Protest against FEDBID.COM and the U.S. Navy for violating the Small Business Act and
Competition in Contracting Act for COMPUTER EQUIPMENT PURCHASES under N3596A14RCCS017
and FEDBID 627729
Dear Procurement Law Group:

Latvian Connection General Trading and Construction LLC, ( LC LLC) A Veteran Owned Business, Shareefa
Complex, 5th Floor, Kuwait City, Kuwait, tel: [001 965 5012 2074].
Email: [keven.barnes@LatvianConnectionLLC.com] , ( DUNS 534749622 and CAGE SGM59, submits this PRE- AWARD
Protest against the DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYs, for not setting aside EXCLUSIVELY for U.S. Small businesses, the
solicitation for FBO N3596A14RCCS017 COMPUTER TERMINALS and PERIPERAL EQUIPMENT, a Reverse
Auction on FEDBID Buy No. 627729 with a value of less than $ 150,000 without setting aside for U.S. Small
Businesses and without posting a Justification and Approval for awarding a contract SOLE BRAND and circumventing the
Competition in Contracting Act and violating the Small Business Act.
FEDBID.com (Exhibit 2) is a platform for U.S. Contracting Officer to circumvent the Federal Laws of the United States.
1. Routinely violate the Competition in Contracting Act by not posting Justifications and Approvals for Sole Brands
2. Routinely violates the Small Business Act for purchases inside the United States for routine commodity items
with a solicitation value of less than $ 150,000
3. In violation of FAR 15.206, routinely REPOST and not award to low bidder and fails to post the Contracting
Officers Amendment as to why the solicitation number has remained the same.
4. Fails to abide by archiving policies for Federal solicitations.
5. Assumes the Contracting Authority of the U.S. Navy without proper delegation of a SF1402 from the contracting
officer and lists itself on FBO where the contracting office and phone number belong for the United States
Agencys contracting office.
The Department of the Navy with the assistance of FEDBID have violated the Small Business Act and Competition in
Contracting Act and never issued a justification and approval for a SOLE BRAND. The Navy has circumvented the
CICA or the Small Business Act. (EXHIBITS 2, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20)
In accordance with 4 C.F.R. 21.1 (c ) (1), the relevant electronic mail address for this protest is
keven.barnes@LatvianConnectionLLC.com ( Representative for the Protester Latvian Connection General Trading and
Construction LLC) DUNS 534749622 and CAGE SGM59
The Contracting Office Representative for this procurement is Karen Jenkins, from the DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY which has only
listed its office address as DAHLGREN VA 22448 The email address for Contracting Office Representative is karen.jenkins@navy.mil , Phone 540
653 0311. This protest is also filed against FEDBID.com who have listed themselves as the contracting officers representative.
Per FAR 33.103 Protests to the agency

GAO PRE AWARD PROTEST
Department of NAVYs & N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729
2|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
( 2 ) Latvian Connection LLC

1083 Vine St. No 503
Tel: 001 707 385 9344
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) should sustain this protest, stay the performance of the
Contract, and direct the US NAVY to post this solicitation on FEDBIZOPPS for Fair and Open competition according to
the Competition in Contracting Act and SETS ASIDE to exclude Foreign companies and Large businesses in accordance
with the Small Business Act.
INTERESTED PARTY STATUS
As discussed below LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC is denied competing for solicitation FEDBID.COM 627729
FBO N3596A14RCCS017 (Exhibits 1) because the solicitation should have been reserved exclusively for U.S. Small
Businesses as required by Federal Law. The solicitation should have been for Brand Name or Equal. Other than U.S.
Small Businesses were invited by not setting aside the solicitation and the Competition in Contracting Act was
circumvented by NOT posting a reason for a SOLE BRAND as required by Federal Law. LATVIAN CONNECTION
LLC incorporates all the below facts and Exhibits into this Interested Party Status section. Further, if this protest is
sustained and Department of NAVYs NAVSEA NSWC Dahlgren for FEDBID.COM 627729; FBO
N3596A14RCCS017, and evaluates LATVIAN CONNECTION LLCs proposal, then LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC,
responsible offeror will have a reasonable chance of winning the Contract if competing ONLY against other U.S. Small
Businesses. Therefore, LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC is an actual offeror whose direct economic interest is affected by
the award of the Contract and hence, an interested party. 31 U.S.C. 3551 (2000); FAR 33.101; 4 C.F.R. 21.0(a)(2006);
Designer Assoc. , Inc.,B-293226, FEB 12, 2004 C.P.D. 114 at 2. This is a Pre-Award Protest filed within 10 days of the
basis of knowledge of the FEDBID posting on undisclosed date, but before the bid due in date of 23 JUN 2014 for which
there has been no known award made.
TIMELINESS OF THIS PROTEST
The Post-Award protest against the Department of NAVYs solicitation N3596A14RCCS017
dated June 26, 2014 and is timely if filed before 10 days of the basis which was the posting on 26 JUNE 2014:
21.2 Time for filing:
(a)(1) Protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to bid opening or the time set for
receipt of initial proposals shall be filed prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals. In
procurements where proposals are requested, alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which
are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing time for receipt of
proposals following the incorporation.
(2) Protests other than those covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis
of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a
procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested,
is required. In such cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have been known either before or as
a result of the debriefing, the initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall
be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.
The bid is due in July 3, 2014 and this Pre-Award Protest is filed before that date.
3|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
The basis is this protest is the solicitation is not SET ASIDE for U.S. Small Businesses and there is no justification and
approval for awarding a contract sole brand which is against the Competition in Contracting Act. The fact that there are
dozens of acceptable brands available that meet the specifications could provide a substantial savings to the United States
Government. U.S. Small Businesses have been harmed by this contracting office violating the Small Business Act and
Latvian Connection LLC, as a Veteran Owned Small Business requests that the GAO refer this Pre-Award Protest to the
Small Business Administration for their comments.
FACTUAL GROUNDS OF THE PROTEST

1. The RFQ
The Department of the Navy, NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, are conducting sole brand solicitation and with
the aid of FEDBID.com, DUNS 020792268, CAGE 4AJS6, ARE circumventing both the Competition in Contracting Act
by eliminating competition without the required Justification and Approval and by circumventing the Small Business Act
for a solicitation with a value under $ 150,000. The solicitation should have been SET-ASIDE for U.S. Small Businesses.
Latvian Connection LLC is a Veteran Owned Small Business Latvian Connection that should not be competing against
Corporations or Foreign Owned business that the Navy have invited with their actions to NOT EXCLUDE all except U.S.
Small Businesses.
II.
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLCs Proposal
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC, a U.S. Veteran Owned Business whose owner is a Retired US Air Force Master
Sergeant that served 28 years in the military and served in Iraq and has offices in California and Kuwait. Latvian
Connection LLC is denied an opportunity to bid and compete against only other U.S. Small Businesses and has been
harmed by the Navys contracting office and by FEDBID.com.
Request of a ruling by the Comptroller General of the United States
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC specifically requests that the GAO recommend that the award of N3596A14RCCS017 /
FEDBID 627729 be stayed and that the GAO recommend that the Air Force to post a copy of the solicitation for full and
open competition and that the Small Business Act be honored and the solicitation is set aside for U.S. Small Businesses
that EXCLUDES all bidders except qualified U.S. Small Businesses.
Under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (the Jobs Act), there is a presumption of loss equal to the value of the
contract or other instrument when a concern willfully seeks and receives an award by misrepresentation. Pub. L. No. 111240. This provision applies to prime contracts, subcontracts, cooperative agreements, cooperative research and
development agreements, and grants (collectively, Federal Procurements). In the final rule issued on June 28, 2013
implementing a part of the Jobs Act, the Small Business Administration (SBA) noted that the presumption of loss will
be applied in all criminal, civil, administrative, contractual, common law, or other actions in which the government seeks
to redress willful misrepresentation. 78 F.R. 38811 (6/28/13). There seems to be an Organizational Conflict of Interest
4|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
when the very same Government are WILLFULLY circumventing the Small Business Act and the Competition in
Contracting Act.
In this case, the loss to U.S. Small Businesses is due to willful actions of the Navy contracting office to allow companies
that should be excluded from competing (Large and Foreign) with the willful assistance of FEDBID.com.
REQUEST FOR HEARING OR CONFERENCE AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
If the issues in this case cannot be resolved on the basis of the documents requested, then LATVIAN CONNECTION
LLC requests a hearing on all of the matters set forth above. 4 C.F.R. 21.1 (d)(2008). Latvian Connection LLC does not
request a protective order.
LEGAL GROUNDS OF PROTEST
There is Overwhelming Evidence that LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC was prejudiced by the Department of Navys
NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk regarding its sole brand solicitation of RFQ N3596A14RCCS017 and
FEDBID 627729.
I.
Latvian Connection LLC is being forced to compete against Foreign Owned and Large Business by the bid
rigging actions of the Navys contracting office and the dishonest activities of FEDBID.com.
II.
The legal grounds that support this Pre-Award Protest are:

Contracting agencies are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in government procurements. FAR
3.101-1; Guardian Techs. Intl., B-270213 et al., Feb. 20, 1996, 96-1 CPD 104 at 5.
There is the appearance of impropriety by the Department of Navys about not competing
N3596A14RCCS017 and the appearance of favoritism in steering and concealing this contract and violating
the Competition in Contracting Act by not allow Brand Name or Equal and bypassing the Small Business Act.
(the overarching principle codified in the Competition in Contracting Act is that agencies provide impartial,
fair, and equitable treatment for each contractor); Dubinsky v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 243, 259 (1999)
(making offerors aware of the rules of the game in which they seek to participate is fundamental to fairness
and open competition). (Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001)
When using simplified acquisition procedures, agencies must promote competition to the maximum extent
practicable. 10 U.S.C. 2304(g)(3) (2012). In meeting this requirement, agencies must make reasonable
efforts, consistent with efficiency and economy, to afford all eligible and interested vendors an opportunity to
compete. S.D.M. Supply, Inc., B-271492, June 26, 1996, 96-1 CPD 288 at 4.
The GAO has stated that in conducting simplified acquisitions to ensure that the procurements are conducted
consistent with a concern for fair and equitable competition and with the terms of the solicitation. Russell
Enters. of N. Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003, 2003 CPD 134 at 3.
5|Page
JUNE 28, 2014

When evaluation criteria are written in the manner utilized here by the agency, and where proposals are to be
evaluated for technical merit on a qualitative basis, an offeror can reasonably expect that a proposal that
exceeds the minimum requirement will receive a more favorable evaluation than one that merely meets the
requirement. See Trijicon, Inc., B-244546, Oct. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD 375 at 5.
The specifications for this solicitation are vague and dont make clear the drivers qualifications that are
required.
The GAO have state that FEDBID has dismal results with its analysis that FEDBID receives no bids on 1/3 of
the postings and another 1/3 have less than 2 bids. This is a great platform for bid rigging no competition
and it certainly is not market research.
The U.S. Navy are violating DoD Directives about setting aside for U.S. Small Businesses. (Exhibit 10)
Section 15U) of the Small Business Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at FAR 13 .003(b)(l),
require contracting officers to set aside contracts above the $3,000 micro-purchase threshold and below
the $150,000 SAT for small business, unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable
expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive
in terms of market prices, quality and delivery. This is known as the "rule of two." FAR 19.502- 2(a)
requires the contracting officer to document the file if a set-aside is not used in
connection with the award of a contract in this dollar range.
It is deceitful, and disingenuous for the Navy to make an assumption that there are not at least 2 U.S. Small Businesses
that can compete for this requirement. FEDBID.com has a responsibility to uphold the Federal Laws of the United States
and the Small Business Act and DoD Directives instead of aiding what appears to be a violation of Federal Law The
Small Business Act and the Competition in Contracting Act. FEDBID.com are nothing more than another DoD contractor
(Exhibit 2) to Latvian Connection LLC and this DoD company along with Board Member Retired General Casey and
Obama OFPP appointee, Joseph Jordan, who abandoned his Presidential post appear to be providing a platform
by which to cheat U.S. Small Businesses from opportunities under the pretense that there are not at least 2 U.S. Small
Business that can compete for this solicitation N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729.
The 112th Congress SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING ACT of 2012 states there are no exclusions or restrictions to the
Act. FAR 19.601 (e) specifically states:
(e) Contracting officers, including those located overseas, are required to comply with this subpart for U.S. small
business concerns.
This Pre-Award protest will show the legal opinions already given by Small Business Administration lawyer, Mrs. Laura
Mann Eyester B-407391(Exhibit 16 & 17) where the SBA Senior Attorney Mrs. Mann Eyester and SBA Associate
General Counsel John W. Klein have stated: 48 C.F.R. 2.101 The Small Business Act states that small business setasides are mandatory for the acquisition of supplies and services valued from $ 2,500 to $ 100,000. 15 U.S.C. 644
(j)(1). However 41 U.S.C. 431a(a) (1) states that the Federal Acquisition Regulatory[FAR] Council shall adjust
each acquisition-related dollar threshold provided by law, as described in subsection (c) of this section to the baseline
constant dollar value of that threshold. The FAR Council published a final rule on August 30, 2012, which
6|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
implemented these inflationary adjustments. 75 Fed. Reg. 53129. As a result of 41 U.S.C. 431a and the final rule, the
FAR now states:
(a) Before setting aside an acquisition under this paragraph, refer to 19.203(b). Each acquisition of supplies or
services that has an anticipated dollar value exceeding $ 3,000 ($15,000 for acquisitions as described in
13.201(g)(1), but not over $ 150,000 ( $ 300,000 for acquisitions described in paragraph (1) of the Simplified
Acquisition Threshold definition at 2.101), is automatically reserved exclusively for small business concerns
and shall be set aside for small business unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable
expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in
terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. If the contracting officer does not proceed with a small business
set-aside and purchases on an unrestricted basis, the contracting officer shall include in the contract file the
reason for this unrestricted purchase. If the contracting officer receives only one acceptable offer from a
responsible small business concern in response to a set-aside, the contracting officer should exclusively for the
small business concerns unless the contracting officer is unable to obtain offers from two or more small
business concerns that are competitive with market prices and are competitive with regard to quality and
delivery of the goods and services being purchased. (Exhibit 20 pg 2-3)
President Obamas Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget issued a Memorandum on the
subject of a April 25, 2012 meeting of the Small Business Procurement Group (Exhibit 10) and this memo from Joseph G.
Jordan, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, and Karen G. Mills, Administrator of the Small Business
Administration state that there were immediate steps to ensure small businesses are utilized to the maximum extent
possible. Maximizing Opportunities for Small Businesses under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold Pursuant to
longstanding statutory requirements in the Small Business Administration Act, agencies are required to automatically set
aside work for small businesses that is equal to or less that the value of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT)
(generally $ 150,000) unless the contracting officer determines the rule of two cannot be met ie. There is not a
reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in
terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. There are more than 5 U.S. Small Businesses in the Middle East Region,
SMI-USA LLC, Trade Links USA LLC, American General Trading, and Latvian Connection LLC.
Note FEDBID.com employees name. Joseph Jordan in President Obamas Memo. This is what POGO refers to as the
revolving door.
Mr. Jordan and Ms Mills go on to say that a third-party analysis of the Federal Procurement Data System suggest that a
significant amount of work under the SAT is not going to small businesses, including for products and services in
industries where small businesses are typically well represented. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses are
being lost, and that agencies must take additional steps to consistently apply set-asides in the manner prescribed by law
and regulation.
The Department of the Navy and the Pentagon are actively prejudicing U.S. Small Businesses with the direct collusion of
FEDBID.com and by the lack of enforcement of the Department of Justice and the Small Business Administration.
Now it appears that Mr. Jordan is assisting FEDBID in circumventing the very Federal Laws that he and SBA Director
Karen Mills pointed out that Small Business Set Asides are not going to small businesses. This does more than
7|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
suggest opportunities are being lost in this case, the Small Business Act is being violated with the assistance and direction
of the United States Navy, the Pentagon, and with the direct assistance, aiding and abetting of FEDBID.com.
Public Law 95-507, The Small Business Act (Exhibit 3, pg 2)

On October 24, 1978, President Carter signed Public Law 95-507 amending the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, making federal procurement contracting more readily accessible to all small businesses.
PL 95-507 stipulates that it is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its
acquisitions to small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses and women-owned businesses. This stipulation also
extends to having the the head of each agency be responsible for effectively implementing the small business programs
within his agency, including setting and achieving yearly procurement opportunity program (POP) goals for small and
small disadvantaged business contracting.
FAR 6.203-206 & 19.5/219.5 (Exhibit 3)
From the Defense Procurement Acquisition and Policy Defense Pricing DOMESTIC PREFERENCE RESTRICTIONS
AFFECTING PURCHASES BY, OR ON BEHALF OF, DoD table,
As the Senior Attorney from the Small Business Administration, Laura Manneyster stated in her review comments to the
GAO for B-407391 (Exhibit 16), Protest of Latvian Connection LLC, Request for Reconsideration, Dec 12, 2012, 15(j)
of the Small Business Act, 19.502-2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
(FAR), and GAO rulings on small business set-asides, all of which state that small business set-asides below the
Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) are automatic; in other words, a contracting officer must set-aside the
acquisition for small business unless he/she can demonstrate that the agency will not receive at least two competitive
offers from small businesses.
First, the Small Business Act provides for an automatic set-aside, or reservation, for small businesses for
acquisitions valued below SAT as follows:
(j)Small business reservation
(1) Each contract for the purchase of goods and services that has an anticipated value of greater than $ 2,500
but not greater than $ 100,000 shall be reserved exclusively for small business concerns unless the contracting officer
is unable to obtain offers from two or more small business concerns that are competitive with the market prices and are
competitive with regard to the quality and delivery of the goods or services being purchased.
15 U.S.C. 644 ( emphasis added). In other words, every acquisition under the SAT is reserved for small businesses
unless the contracting officer will be unable to obtain offers from two or more small businesses. Moreover, the statute
states that it is up to the contracting officer not a specific small business advocating for a small business set-aside,
not SBA, and not any other entity to perform adequate market research to be able to make a determination that there
are not at least two small businesses capable of performing the requirement. (Exhibit 16 )
19.502-1 Requirements for setting aside acquisitions. (Exhibit 3)

(a) The contracting officer shall set aside an individual acquisition or class of acquisitions for competition among small
businesses when
(1) It is determined to be in the interest of maintaining or mobilizing the Nations full productive capacity, war or national
defense programs; or
8|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
(2) Assuring that a fair proportion of Government contracts in each industry category is placed with small business
concerns; and the circumstances described in 19.502-2 or 19.502-3(a) exist.
19.502-2 Total small business set-asides. (Exhibit 3)
(a) Each acquisition of supplies or services that has an anticipated dollar value exceeding $3,000 ($15,000 for acquisitions
as described in 13.201(g)(1)), but not over $100,000 ($250,000 for acquisitions described in paragraph (1) of the
Simplified Acquisition Threshold definition at 2.101), is automatically reserved exclusively for small business concerns
and shall be set aside for small business unless the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable expectation of
obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices,
quality, and delivery. If the contracting officer does not proceed with the small business set-aside and purchases on an
unrestricted basis, the contracting officer shall include in the contract file the reason for this unrestricted purchase. If the
contracting officer receives only one acceptable offer from a responsible small business concern in response to a set-aside,
the contracting officer should make an award to that firm. If the contracting officer receives no acceptable offers from
responsible small business concerns, the set-aside shall be withdrawn and the requirement, if still valid, shall be
resolicited on an unrestricted basis. The small business reservation does not preclude the award of a contract with a value
not greater than $100,000 under Subpart 19.8, Contracting with the Small Business Administration, under 19.1007(c),
Solicitations equal to or less than the ESB reserve amount, or under 19.1305, HUBZone set-aside procedures.
19.502-5 Insufficient causes for not setting aside an acquisition. (Exhibit 3)
None of the following is, in itself, sufficient cause for not setting aside an acquisition:
(a) A large percentage of previous contracts for the required item(s) has been placed with small business concerns.
(b) The item is on an established planning list under the Industrial Readiness Planning Program. However, a total small
business set-aside shall not be made when the list contains a large business Planned Emergency Producer of the item(s)
who has conveyed a desire to supply some or all of the required items.
(c) The item is on a Qualified Products List. However, a total small business set-aside shall not be made if the list contains
the products of large businesses unless none of the large businesses desire to participate in the acquisition.
(d) A period of less than 30 days is available for receipt of offers.
(e) The acquisition is classified.
(f) Small business concerns are already receiving a fair proportion of the agencys contracts for supplies and services.
(g) A class small business set-aside of the item or service has been made by another contracting activity.
(h) A brand name or equal product description will be used in the solicitation.
19.502-4 Methods of conducting set-asides. (Exhibit 3)
(a) Total small business set-asides may be conducted by using simplified acquisition procedures (see Part 13), sealed bids
(see Part 14), or competitive proposals (see Part 15). Partial small business set-asides may be conducted using sealed bids
(see Part 14), or competitive proposals (see Part 15).
Mr. Smith did not exclude foreign businesses from this solicitation for the construction project ( Exhibit 1) as required by
Federal statutes.
(Exhibit 3)
15 U.S.C. 644(j): Each contract for the purchase of goods and services that has an anticipated value greater than
$2,500 but not greater than $100,000 (recently raised to $3,000 and $150,000) shall be reserved exclusively for small
business concerns.
The interim rule issued by DoD, GSA and NASA provides for the use of small business set-asides on GSA Schedule
contracts but only at the discretion of the federal agency. This is unacceptable in particular because when federal
regulators originally passed a rule at section 8.4 of the FAR exempting GSA Schedule contracts from FAR 19, they
exceeded the scope of their authority and went against the original congressional intent of the Small Business Act. The
interim rule is nothing more than an egregious attempt on the part of federal regulators to grant federal agencies the
authority to decide whether or not to recognize the constitutional rights of small business concerns.
Moreover, in 2007 the Small Business Administration offered a legal opinion to the GAO, which stated that, according to
statute and regulations, small business set asides are mandatory for acquisitions valued from $3,000 to $100,000
9|Page
JUNE 28, 2014
(upgraded to $150,000 in 2011) and take priority over GSA Schedule contracts. This interpretation is consistent with the
declared and unambiguous intent of Congress as it relates to Federal procurement and small Businesses. In other words,
agencies do not have any latitude on the matter. This legal opinion has once again been made by the SBA in November
2012. ( Exhibits 16 & 17 )
(Exhibit 3)
FAR Part 19 also recognizes VOSBs, see FAR 19.201(a) (It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum
practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteranowned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business
concerns.) (emphasis added), although no separate VOSB program like the set-aside program for SDVOSBs is found in
FAR Part 19.
Latvian Connection LLC is a VOSB Veteran Owned Small Business as applicable to FAR Part 19 and the Small Business
Act.
Memo from Office of Under Secretary of Defense, July 12, 2012 (Exhibit 10)
From Richard Ginman, Director of Defense Acquisition and Procurement Policy
Andre J. Grudger, Director of Small Business Programs
Subject: Increasing Opportunities for Small Business through Small Business Set-Asides under the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold.
(Exhibits 16 & 17 )
In the legal opinion and analysis of B-407391, SBAs Senior Attorney stated that the GAO gave deference to the SBAs
interpretation of its statute, citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837(1984)
and the GAO state that wen a statute under consideration creates a program to be administered by the SBA it is the
views of the SBA, rather than [another agency], to which our Office will afford deference. General Service
Administration Reconsideration, B-406040.2, Oct 4, 2012. In this case, we are interpreting 15 U.S.C. 644(a) &
644(j), which are set forth in 15 of the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act specifically provides that: Small
Business Administration ( herein referred to as the Administration) 15 U.S.C. 633. Congress granted SBA the
authority to administer the Act. As a result, GAO must afford SBA deference over the FAR in creating policy and
interpreting the Small Business Act, especially when the two conflict. SBAs regulations on this issue state the
following:
(f) Contracting Among Small Business Programs
(1) Acquisitions Valued At or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The contracting officer shall set aside
acquisition with an anticipated dollar value exceeding the Micro-Purchase Threshold but not exceeding the
Simplified Acquisition Threshold (defined in the FAR at 48 CFR 2.101) for small business concerns when there is
reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two small business concerns that are competitive
10 | P a g e
JUNE 28, 2014
terms of quality, and delivery and award will be made at fair market prices.
The SBA Senior attorney went on to state that 13 C.F.R. 125.2 (f); 13 C.F.R. 124.503(j), 125.19(b), 126.607(b),
127.503(d), SBAs regulations require a contracting officer to set-aside all acquisitions valued above or below the
simplified acquisition threshold for small businesses, including those awarded and/or performed overseas, if market
research indicates that the rule of two may be met. As a result, we believe that the FAR is inconsistent with SBAs
regulations and the SBAs regulations should control. See C & G Excavating, Inc., v U.S, 32 Fed.C1. 231, 239 (1994)
(Where there is a conflict between SBAs regulations on the COC program and the FAR the SBAs procedures
generally should control, especially considering that the SBA is the agency charged with issuing COCs, not DoD,
GAO, or NASA.) Hawpe Const., Inc., v U.S. 46 Fed.C1. 571, 582 (2000) (Conflicts between FAR and SBA
regulations should be resolved by looking to the SBAs latest intent on the issue and by relying on the SBA to
determine which provision best implements the policies of the agency itself.)
Finally, we note that GAO has addressed this issue already, with respect to the SBAs COC Program. In Discount
Machinery & Equipment. Inc., the Panama Canal Commission believed that FAR 19.000(b) precluded the SBAs
review of any Federal procurement if the procuring agency is located outside the United States. The GAO stated that:
Based on our review of the Small Business Act and the applicable regulations, we find that the location of the
Contracting agency has no bearing on the applicability of SBAs COC program. Nothing in the Small Business
Act imposes any geographic limitation regarding a contracting agencys location which would exempt
procurements from the Acts coverage. Rather the factor which determines whether a small business concern
qualifies for SBAs COC proceedings is the nationality of the business.
The SBA Senior attorney went on to cite one more case to show that the Small Business Act does apply overseas.
Discount Machinery & Equipment, Inc., 70 Comp. Gen. 108, B-240525, 90-2 CPD 420 (1990) (Emphasis added )
Interestingly, the GAO further states that it believes the Small Business Administration Act applies to agencies located
outside the United States.
This legal analysis was given by SBA Senior Attorney Laura Mann Eyester and SBAs Associate General Counsel for
Procurement Law, John Klien,. (Exhibits 16 & 17)
Prejudice requires a reasonable likelihood that Latvian Connection LLC would have been awarded the Contract if we had
been allowed the opportunity had been conducted as a Small Business Set-Aside that fell into the U.S. Dollar value range
of $ 3,000 to $ 1,000,000. Such a determination is not susceptible to a precise mathematical calculation; rather, prejudice
requires only that but for the agencys actions, the protestors would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the award.
Anthem Alliance for Health, Inc., TRICARE Management Activity Reconsideration, B-278189.5, July 13, 1998, 98-2
CPD 66. A reasonable possibility of prejudice therefore is sufficient to sustain the protest. United Intl. Engg., Inc., B245448.3, Jan 29, 1992, 92-1 C.P.D. 122. Europe Displays, Inc., B-297099. The fact that NAVSUP Fleet Logistics
Center Norfolk conducted a solicitation that is not a total small business set-aside has prejudiced Latvian Connection
LLC.
The Competition in Contracting Act states:
Regarding sole brand without a Justification and Approval the Navy are steering the contract and limiting competition
which is not in the best interest of the United States tax payer.
Under CICA, 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(a)(1)(A), contracting officers have a duty to promote and provide for
competition and to provide the most advantageous contract for the government. In their role of promoting
and providing for competition, contracting officials must act affirmatively to obtain and safeguard
competition; they cannot take a passive approach and remain in a noncompetitive position where they
could reasonably take steps to enhance competition. VSE Corp., Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., B290452.3 et al., May 23, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 103 at 8; HEROS, Inc., B-292043, June 9, 2003, 2003
CPD para. 111 at 7; National Aerospace Group, Inc., B-282843, Aug. 30, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 43 at 8.
See also S. Rep. No. 98-50, at 18 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2174, 2191 (stating that CICA
11 | P a g e
JUNE 28, 2014
requires agencies to make an affirmative effort to obtain effective competition). CICA further provides
that under no circumstance may noncompetitive procedures be used due to a lack of advance planning by
contracting officials. 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(f)(5)(A); Signals & Sys., Inc., B-288107, Sept. 21, 2001, 2001
CPD para. 168 at 9. Although the requirement for advance planning is not a requirement that such
planning be successful or error-free, see Abbott Prods., Inc., B-231131, Aug. 8, 1988, 88-2 CPD para.
119, at 8, the advance planning must be reasonable. Signals & Sys., Inc., supra, at 13. Here, we conclude
that the agency has failed to comply with the CICA mandate for reasonable advance planning.
III.
The UNITED STATES NAVY is being Unreasonable
By NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk Contracting Officer not SETTING ASIDE FOR US SMALL BUSINESSES
and NOT allowing Brand Name or Equal for RFQ N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729 as required by the
Competition in Contracting Act and fabricating fictitious statements that in the entire United States, there are NOT 2 U.S.
Small Businesses, the United States Navy has harmed Latvian Connection LLC and its opportunities to bid against ONLY
U.S. Small Businesses. By not exclusively reserving this solicitation for U.S. Small Businesses, the contracting
procurement process has been compromised.
The GAO has stated: However, an agency must undertake reasonable efforts to ascertain whether it is likely that it will
receive offers from at least two small businesses capable of performing the work. Id. Our Office will review a protest of
an agency determination not to set aside a procurement to determine whether the contracting officer has undertaken
reasonable efforts to ascertain the availability of capable small businesses. Id.
The United States Navy did not conduct a Sources Sought to determine if U.S. Small Businesses were interested and the
U.S. Navy did not conduct a Pre-Solicitation. The U.S. Navy has bypassed the Small Business Act and the Competition
in Contracting Act with its arbitrary and capricious decision to not SET ASIDE for U.S. Small Businesses on such a
common commodity as computers and peripheral devices.
It is unreasonable to conduct a solicitation for just 7 days and assume that there are not at least 2 Small Businesses that
would compete. The GAO report suggests that U.S. Small Businesses dont trust FEDBID.com, not that there are not
U.S. Small Businesses that will not compete for commodity items. The FAR only recognizes www.FBO.gov as the
platform to conduct U.S. Government contracting. NOT FEDBID. The United States Navy and the Pentagon are
cheating U.S. Small Businesses by utilizing FEDBID.com and its unfair businesses practices of not awarding consistently
to the low bidder but instead have endless reposts against FAR 15.206 and without Amendments. This is not market
research to depend upon the dismal responses of FEDBID and assume there is not 2 U.S. Small Businesses out of the
entire United States supply businesses from the U.S. Census Bureau statistics of U.S. Small Businesses. The number of
qualified U.S. Small Businesses that would compete on solicitation N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729
is greater than 2. This decision by the U.S. Navy to not set aside deserves an investigation from the Small Business
Administration and the Department of Justice.

12 | P a g e
IV.
JUNE 28, 2014
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC Has Been Prejudiced

Prejudice requires a reasonable likelihood that LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC would have been
awarded the Contract based on a fair evaluation of LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLCs bid AGAINT ONLY U.S.
Small Businesses. Such a determination is not susceptible to a precise mathematical calculation; rather, prejudice
requires only that but for the agencys actions, the protestors would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the
award. Anthem Alliance for Health, Inc., TRICARE Management Activity Reconsideration, B-278189.5, July 13,
1998, 98-2 CPD 66. A reasonable possibility of prejudice therefore is sufficient to sustain the protest. United Intl.
Engg., Inc., B-245448.3, Jan 29, 1992, 92-1 C.P.D. 122. Europe Displays, Inc., B-297099. Latvian Connection
LLC has been prejudiced by US NAVYs violation of the Competition in Contracting Act and Small Business Act to
invite Foreign and Large Business to compete in a competition that should be reserved exclusively for U.S. Small
Businesses.
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC requests that the following materials be included in the agency
report, pursuant to 4 C.F.R. 21.1(d)(2008):
All Market Research to suggest that there were no Small Businesses that could perform
A copy of the Justification and Approval to sole source contract award F6FGAC4125A001
The SF 2579 Small Business Coordination Record
All Market Research regarding Set-Aside Businesses including SAM.gov and the Small Business
Administrations Dynamic listing (Exhibit 6)
Bid Abstract and Evaluations
All emails, memo for record, regarding this solicitation with Foreign companies & Large Businesses
All documents that refer or relate to the efforts to obtain competition from U.S. Registered Small
Businesses.
All documents that refer or relate to the efforts to increase competition
All documents that refer or relate to the Contracting Officers Market Research

13 | P a g e
JUNE 28, 2014

REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND CONCLUSION
LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC requests that the U.S. Navy take corrective action and cancel the award of
N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729 and solicit as a Total Small Business Set Aside ; and post the solicitation
on www.fbo.gov and set aside the solicitation for U.S. Small Businesses. We also request that the U.S. Navy cease using
FEDBID.com and perform market research with the Small Business Administration and their Dynamic Database of Small
Businesses; conduct Sources Sought and Pre-Solicitations and utilize the ONLY Federal Acquisition Government Point of
Entry www.fbo.gov . For the U.S. Navy to rely on FEDBID.coms record of 2/3 of all solicitations having less than 2
bids (Exhibit 4) is not MARKET RESEARCH, it is a hustle against the U.S. Small Businesses of the United States and
ex-Obama appointee Joseph Jordan who has abandoned an important assignment in order to assist FEDBID steal U.S.
Small Business contracts from U.S. Small Businesses, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses, Veteran
Owned Small Business, minority owned Small Businesses and Women Owned Small Businesses.
We must emphatically request that this important protest be sent to the Small Business Administration for their review
and comments.
We also request that LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest,
including reasonable protest preparation fees. Bid Protest Regulations 4 C.F.R. 21.8(d)(1) (2010).
New When a procuring agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, our Office may
recommend reimbursement of protest costs where, based on the circumstances of the case, we determine
that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest,
thereby causing the protester to expend unnecessary time and resources to make further use of the
protest process in order to obtain relief. 4 C.F.R. 21.8(e) (2013); AAR Aircraft Servs.--Costs, B291670.6, May 12, 2003, 2003 CPD 100 at 6. When an agency takes corrective action before the due
date set for receipt of the agency report, our Office views such action as prompt and will not recommend
the reimbursement of costs. The Sandi-Sterling Consortium--Costs, B-296246.2, Sept. 20, 2005, 2005
CPD 173 at 2-3.
Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, the GAO may recommend that protest costs be reimbursed where
they find that an agencys action violated a procurement statute or regulation. 31 U.S.C. 3554(c)(1) (2010). The
GAOs Bid Protest Regulations provide that, where the contracting agency decides to take corrective action in
response to a protest, the GAO may recommend that the protester be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its
protest, including reasonable attorneys fees. 4 C.F.R. 21.8(e) (2010). The GAO has stated that it does not mean
that costs should be reimbursed in every case in which an agency decides to take corrective action; rather, a protester
should be reimbursed its costs where an agency unduly delayed its decision to take corrective action in the face of a
clearly meritorious protest. Griners-A-One Pipeline Servs., Inc.--Costs, B-255078.3, July 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD 41
at 5.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Keven L. Barnes
CEO
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548
July 1, 2014
Keven Barnes
Latvian Connection, LLC
File:
Protester:
Agency:
Solicitation No.:
Report Due:
GAO Attorney:
Official Fax:
B-410000
Naval Supply Systems Command
N3596A-14-r-CCS017
07/30/2014
Decision Due: 10/08/2014
Noah B. Bleicher
Phone:
202-512-5078
202-512-9749
Case Status: 202-512-5436
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROTEST
We have received your protest concerning the referenced procurement. The
contracting agency is required to file a report in response to the protest by the
Report Due date indicated above. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.
21.3(i), you are required to submit written comments in response to the report.
Written comments must be received in our Office within 10 calendar days of your
receipt of the report--otherwise, we will dismiss your protest. For purposes of
determining when your response to the agency report must be submitted, we will
assume that you received the report by the Report Due date unless you notify us
otherwise at that time.
Also, the agency has been advised that if you have filed a request for specific
documents, the agency should provide to all parties and GAO, at least 5 days prior
to the Report Due date, a list of those documents, or portions of documents, that the
agency has released to the protester or intends to produce in the report, and of the
documents that the agency intends to withhold and the reasons for the proposed
withholding. You are requested to object to the scope of the agencys proposed
disclosure or nondisclosure with GAO and the other parties within 2 days of receipt
of the list.
Bid protests, and subsequent associated filings, may be filed using the following
methods. Our Office hours are 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. eastern time, Monday
through Friday.
Facsimile: When filing with our Office, parties should rely on the use of
facsimiles as much as possible. Facsimile transmitted documents are
considered filed upon receipt of the entire text of the filing. Correspondence
received, and transmissions completed, after our Office hours will be
considered filed on the next business day. When filing a document by
facsimile, it is not necessary to file a duplicate original. If a duplicate original
is provided, please indicate on the face of the duplicate original that it
previously has been telecopied. Please refrain from sending voluminous
transmissions or lengthy exhibits. These exhibits should be hand delivered,
or sent by mail or commercial carrier (e.g., UPS or FedEx).
E-mail: Protest filings may be submitted to protests@gao.gov (see the Legal

Products section of our web site, www.gao.gov, for more information).
Hand Delivery: Please note the following changes for hand-deliveries.

Effective March 3, 2008, the filing window at GAOs Headquarters Building
will no longer accept deliveries. All packages must be delivered to GAOs
new mail center located on the 4th street side of the GAO building. Anyone
attempting to pick up or deliver packages will need to walk up to the door and
ring the door bell in order to be let in to the Courier Reception Desk.
The new GAO mail center will accept deliveries for GAOs Bid Protest forum
from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm. Packages MUST have one of the following labels:
Procurement Law Control Group,
Bid Protest,
PLCG,
Name of GAO attorney, or
Contract Appeals Board
Packages will be scanned and may be opened and searched. After
inspection, packages will be time/date stamped. Senders must leave enough
time for timely delivery. Please, be advised that it may take some time for
packages to be processed. Timeliness will be measured by the time/datestamp. GAO employees will not meet couriers outside of the GAO building
to accept packages. The window closes promptly at 5:30 p.m.; packages
cannot be left after that time.
Regular Mail or Commercial Carrier (e.g., UPS or FedEx): Documents

transmitted using these methods are considered filed when time/datestamped at GAO. Regular mail should not be used for time-sensitive filings.
GAO bid protest decisions not subject to protective orders are distributed via the
GAO Worldwide Web Internet site (www.gao.gov), and in most cases are available
within 1 business day of the decision date. We will provide you or your
representative e-mail notice of the availability of the decision on this protest upon
issuance if you furnish us the e-mail address.
Please refer to our file number in all future correspondence regarding the protest.
--For the Managing Associate General Counsel

July 1, 2014
Michelle Davis
File:
Protester:
Agency:
Solicitation No.:
Report Due:
GAO Attorney:
Official Fax:
B-410000
N3596A-14-r-CCS017
07/30/2014
Decision Due: 10/08/2014
Noah B. Bleicher
Phone:
202-512-5078
202-512-9749
Case Status: 202-512-5436
CONFIRMATION OF REPORT REQUIREMENT

This confirms our telephonic notice of the protest and report due date indicated
above. Please advise us immediately of the individual(s) that will be representing
the agency in the protest, including name, address (and Internet e-mail address, if
any), and the telephone and fax numbers.
You should notify all intervenors that this protest has been filed and to communicate
directly with us in connection with the protest. Copies of the report must be
furnished to the protester and all intervenors not later than the date indicated above.
Please advise the protester of its obligation to submit comments or request a
decision on the existing record within 10 days of its receipt of the agency report.
Please also advise all parties of their right to submit comments on the report to GAO
within 10 days of its receipt. You should refer to our file number and the GAO
attorney assigned in all future correspondence regarding the protest. Any request for
dismissal should be filed as soon as practicable after receipt of this notice if the
agency seeks resolution of the request by our Office prior to the stated report due
date.
For your convenience, following is a list of the type of information to be included in
your agency report:
--the contracting officer's statement of the relevant facts;
--a best estimate of the contract value;

--whether a statutory stay or suspension of performance is in place;
--a memorandum of law;
--a copy of all relevant documents, or portions of documents, not previously
produced, including, as appropriate, any agency-level protest and decision, the bid
or proposal submitted by the protester, the bid or proposal of the firm being
considered for award or whose bid or proposal is being protested, all evaluation
documents, the solicitation (with specifications), and the abstract of bids or offers;
and
--an index identifying the contents of the report and the location of each document or
enclosure. Where portions of the report have been redacted for any party (or where
the agency has omitted certain documents from a party's report), please indicate
which redactions or omissions apply to each party. Agency reports must be
organized through the use of pagination, tabs, and binders, as appropriate.
If the protester has filed a request for specific documents, please provide to all
parties and GAO, at least 5 days prior to the report due date, a list of those
documents, or portions of documents, that you have released to the protester or
intend to produce in your report, and of the documents you intend to withhold and
the reasons for the withholding.
GAO bid protest decisions not subject to protective orders are distributed via the
GAO Worldwide Web Internet site (www.gao.gov), and in most cases are available
within 1 business day of the decision date. We will provide you or your
representative e-mail notice of the availability of the decision on this protest upon
issuance if you furnish us the e-mail address.
--For the Managing Associate General Counsel
Testimony before the Subcommittee on

Oversight and Investigations, Committee on
Veterans Affairs and the Subcommittee on
Contracting and Workforce, Committee on
Small Business, House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
REVERSE AUCTIONS
Guidance Is Needed to
Maximize Competition and
Achieve Cost Savings
Statement of Michele Mackin, Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management
GAO-14-200T
Chairmen Coffman and Hanna, Ranking Members Kirkpatrick and Meng,

and Members of the Subcommittees:
I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the federal governments
use of reverse auctions. In recent years, federal agencies have been
using this mechanismin which sellers compete against each other in an
online venue to sell their products or servicesas a tool to reduce the
price they pay for certain types of items. In theory, a reverse auction
leverages competition, enabling agencies to obtain lower prices and
reduce acquisition costs. We found that government agencies were
increasingly using reverse auctions as a means to drive down prices but
without adequate guidance to ensure that the potential benefits were
maximized.
My remarks today are primarily based on our recently issued report on
agencies use of reverse auctions. Accordingly, this testimony addresses
(1) what agencies are buying through reverse auctions and trends in their
use; (2) how agencies are conducting reverse auctions; and (3) the extent
to which the potential benefits of reverse auctions are being maximized.1
My testimony today will summarize our findings from that report.
To conduct our work, we used fiscal year 2012 contract award information
from Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps.gov) to identify the
Departments of the Army (Army), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior
(DOI), and Veterans Affairs VA) as the primary users of reverse auctions,
representing approximately 70 percent of the activity. Because the
agencies did not maintain the level of detailed information needed for our
review, we obtained reverse auction data from FedBid, Inc., the company
that conducted almost all of the governments reverse auctions in fiscal
year 2012, according to FedBizOpps.
In addition, we reviewed, where applicable, government-wide and agency
policies and guidance regarding reverse auctions at these agencies;
interviewed government acquisition officials and officials from the Office
of Management and Budgets Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP); spoke with organizations representing government contractors;
and reviewed a sample of contract files where a reverse auction was
GAO, Reverse Auctions: Guidance Is Needed to Maximize Competition and Achieve

Cost Savings, GAO-14-108 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 9, 2013).
Page 1
GAO-14-200T
used. This work was performed in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Our report provides further details on our
scope and methodology.
Reverse Auctions
Have Increased and
Have Been Used
Primarily to Buy
Commercial Products
and Services
Across the four agencies representing the bulk of reverse auction activity
in fiscal year 2012, use of reverse auctions increased almost 175 percent
between fiscal years 2008 and 2012. Figure 1 summarizes the growth in
use of reverse auctions in dollars and number of auctions.
Figure 1: Number and Value of Reverse Auctions across the Selected Agencies
from Fiscal Years 2008 to 2012
Of the $828 million in fiscal year 2012 contracting actions that resulted
from reverse auctions at these agencies, $746 millionor 90 percent
was for products. Services, in contrast, constituted about 10 percent.
Reverse auctions were used to purchase a variety of commercial
products, primarily for information technology (IT) and medical equipment
and supplies. While to date most reverse auctions have been used for
commercial products, some agency officials told us that the use of
Page 2
GAO-14-200T
reverse auctions to acquire services is increasing and that they are also
being used for more complex contracts.
Our analysis of the data also identified some common characteristics
among contract awards resulting from reverse auctions. We found the
following:
About 95 percent of the reverse auctions resulted in awards of

$150,000 or less.
About 86 percent of the reverse auction awardsrepresenting 80

percent of the dollarswent to small businesses. Figure 2 shows a
breakdown of small business dollars among the four agencies.
Figure 2: Value of Small Business Awards Resulting from the Use of Reverse
Auctions across the Selected Agencies, Fiscal Year 2012
Further, almost 50 percent of the reverse auctions were conducted to

place orders under existing contracts. In some cases, the use of these
contract vehicles includes a fee that the ordering agency must pay.
And we also found that almost 60 percent of reverse auction awards

were in the last quarter of the fiscal year. Agency officials told us this
Page 3
GAO-14-200T
can occur due to the timing of when funds are released and that
reverse auctions can facilitate the timely award of contracts late in the
fiscal year.
Agencies Use the

Same Fee-Based
Contractor and Are to
Follow Established
Contracting
Procedures to
Conduct Their
Reverse Auctions
All four agencies contracted with FedBid, a fee-based contractor, to

conduct their reverse auctions during fiscal year 2012. Agency officials
stated that contracting officers are required to follow established
contracting procedures and rules. The contracting officer must also
establish the basis for award. For example, the contracting officer can
make the award to the lowest bidder or make the award based on a
cost/technical trade-off process where it is in the best interest of the
government to consider other than the lowest price. In fact, on the basis
of our analysis of a random sample of auctions, we estimate that 24
percent of all reverse auction contracts awarded by the four agencies in
fiscal year 2012 were not awarded to the lowest bidding vendor.2
Contracting officers can determine reverse auction features, such as the
length of an auction, the amount of information available to bidders about
each others bids, and whether to set a target price, which may be based
on a government cost estimate or market research. If a target price is in
effect, or active, a vendor must bid below that price and have submitted
the lowest bid in order to be identified as the leading vendor. The leading
vendor has the lowest price (below the target price) at any given time
during an auction. However, a contracting officer can still award a
contract even if no submitted bids meet the target price, that is, when no
vendors were identified as the leading vendor. These strategies or
features can affect the competitive environment of the auction and affect
the magnitude of cost savings.
Vendors must register with FedBid and agree to the requirements
established by the contracting officer before submitting a bid in an
auction. Vendors can use FedBids system to submit questions about
requirements during the auction, and the system notifies the contracting
officer via e-mail. It is up to the contracting officer to decide whether to
answer them. Several vendors stated that FedBids interface creates an
additional layer between the vendor and the end user that can inhibit their
efforts to clarify details in the solicitationsuch as the type of material an
agency requiresthat are important in setting a bid price.
This estimate has a 95 percent confidence interval that extends from 17 to 33 percent.
Page 4
GAO-14-200T
As part of our review, we gained an understanding of how reverse auction

fees are paid. When a vendor submits a bid, FedBid automatically adds
its fee and ranks the adjusted bid (i.e., the vendors bid plus the fee)
against adjusted bids submitted by other vendors. When the reverse
auction ends and the contracting officer receives the results, the bids,
which already include FedBids fee, are ranked from lowest to highest.
Then, when the agency receives the goods or services, it pays the entire
bid amount to the selected vendor, including the fee. FedBid then sends
an invoice to the selected vendor, who remits the fee to FedBid directly.
Agency officials and some vendors were confused about FedBids fees.
What we found is that FedBid caps its fee at 3 percent of the winning
vendors bid (though the fee is not to exceed $10,000), but the fee may
be less depending on the specifics of FedBids contract with the agency.
In addition, FedBid may reduce its fee or charge no fee in specific
circumstances. In fact, we found that FedBid received no fees in 20
percent of fiscal year 2012 reverse auctions.
In July 2013, the General Services Administration (GSA) launched its own
reverse auction tool to allow agencies to use reverse auctions with the
GSA Schedule without using a separate contractor to conduct the
auctions. GSA does not intend to charge a reverse auction fee for awards
made to GSA Schedule holders, but agencies would still pay the 0.75
percent GSA Schedule fee. We did not conduct a detailed review of
GSAs reverse auction tool.
Competition and
Savings Are Not
Always Maximized, in
Part Due to Lack of
Comprehensive
Guidance
Competition and savingstwo of the key benefits of reverse auctions

cited by the agencies we reviewedare not always being maximized.
Both have been limited because not all reverse auctions involve what we
refer to as interactive bidding, where vendors engage in multiple rounds
of bids against each other to drive prices lower. We found that over a third
of the fiscal year 2012 reverse auctions had no interactive biddingand
agencies paid $3.9 million in fees for these auctions. Figure 3 shows the
percentage of FedBids fiscal year 2012 auctions for the agencies in our
review that had interactive bidding among multiple vendors, versus those
that did not, and the fees the agencies paid to FedBid.
Page 5
GAO-14-200T
Figure 3: Fees Paid by Selected Agencies Based on Number of Vendors and Bids,
Fiscal Year 2012
In addition, agencies cite savings as one of the benefits of reverse

auctions. Although the agencies in our review stated that they do not
publicly report the savings, they use the informationprovided by
FedBidto assess the potential costs and benefits of reverse auctions.
Using FedBids approach of calculating savings based on the delta
between the agencys target price and the winning bid, savings from fiscal
year 2012 reverse auctions for the selected agencies totaled about $98
million.
However, it is unclear whether these savings are accurate. We found that
the $98 million in estimated savings may be too high since it includes
$24 million in savings from auctions without interactive bidding, which
in theory would help drive prices lower, and
1,111 auctions that had interactive bidding resulted in an award price

higher than the agencys target price, which may indicate that the
contracting officer set the target price too low.
Page 6
GAO-14-200T
We also found that agencies
rely on FedBid to identify their reverse auction activity,

generally do not track how much they pay in reverse auction fees,3
and
sometimes pay two sets of fees when using an existing contract

vehicle in conjunction with a reverse auction. For example, 47 percent
of acquisitions using reverse auctions were ordered under pre-existing
contracts. Agencies paid $6.5 million in fees to FedBid in these cases
in addition to paying a separate fee to use some of the existing
contracts..
However, we found that VA in particular has taken steps to gain greater

insight into its use of reverse auctions. In 2012, the agencys senior
procurement executive temporarily halted use of reverse auctions while
an assessment was made of their effect on VA acquisitions. The reverse
auctions were subsequently resumed, requiring collection of savings and
fee calculations, which we found evidence of in the contract files we
reviewed.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does not specifically address
reverse auctions. Agencies have developed their own guidance, though
most do not provide information on what to do in certain situationsfor
example, when only one vendor submits a bid. In our discussions with
agency officials and vendors, we found they were uncertain about how
reverse auction fees are paid and that confusion exists about how reverse
auctions are managed. We believe that the lack of government-wide
guidance addressing the use of reverse auctions and the confusion within
the vendor community about the process may limit the potential benefits
of reverse auctions.
While agencies generally do not track the reverse auction fees they pay, pursuant to
FedBids GSA Schedule contract, federal agency buyers utilizing FedBids reverse auction
services reserve the right to pay the transactional fee directly to FedBid. We found that the
VA in some instances asked FedBid for information regarding the fees paid on specific
reverse auctions.
Page 7
GAO-14-200T
GAO Recommends
that Office of Federal
Procurement Policy
Take Actions to
Address the Use of
Reverse Auctions
Given the clear trends showing that reverse auctions are on the rise and
the lack of government-wide guidance on their use, we made several
recommendations in our report. We recommended that the FAR be
amended to address reverse auctions from a regulatory standpoint, and
also recommended that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
issue guidance addressing competition and fees and to share agency
best practices.
OMB generally agreed with our recommendations.
Chairmen Coffman and Hanna, Ranking Members Kirkpatrick and Meng,
and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my prepared
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may
have at this time.
Contacts and
Acknowledgments
(121185)
If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please
contact Michele Mackin at (202) 512-4841 or MackinM@gao.gov. In
addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals
who made key contributions to this testimony are Katherine Trimble,
Assistant Director; Russ Reiter; Carl Barden; Virginia (Jenny) Chanley;
Dayna Foster; Kristine Hassinger; Georgeann Higgins; Julia Kennon;
Kenneth Patton; Roxanna Sun; Bob Swierczek; and Jocelyn Yin.
Page 8
GAO-14-200T
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
GAOs Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
GAOs commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no

cost is through GAOs website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select E-mail Updates.
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAOs actual cost of

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAOs website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional
Relations
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 5124400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Please Print on Recycled Paper.
TABLE of CONTENTS
Exhibit 10 MG Masiello Memo SB 20121213_SAT-Policy-Memo
Page
Exhibit 10A AQCMemo_FAR19_11Jul13t ( MG Masiello )
Page
Exhibit 25 USD(ATL) Signed Memo to Workforce

BBP 2 0 (13 Nov 12) wATTCHS (KENDALL)
Page
Exhibit 26 USA003951-12_OSBP_D DPAP IncreasingOpport

for Sm Bus Memo ( GINMAN GRUDGER)
Page
15
Exhibit 27 Executive Office of the President June 6, 2012 MEMO

(JORDAN - MILLS)
Page
17
MG Masiello Memo SB 20121213_SAT-Policy-Memo

2
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS

3
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000
'J~
1 :vlL
ACQUJSmON,
TECHNOLOGY
AND LOGISTICS
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS

COMMAND (ATTN: ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE)
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION
COMMAND (ATTN: ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(PROCUREMENT), DASA(P)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
(ACQUISITION & LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT),
DASN(A&LM)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
(CONTRACTING), SAF/AQC
DIRECTORS, DEFENSE AGENCIES
DIRECTORS, DOD FIELD ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT: Increasing Opportunities for Small Businesses through Small Business Setasides under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold
Small businesses play a vital role in their contribution to the defense industrial
base and the Department of Defense (DoD) is committed to increasing contracting
opportunities for these entities. The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of
longstanding statutory requirements to set aside contracts for small businesses where the
contract value is equal to or less than the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) unless
the "rule of two" is not met, and request that you redouble efforts to ensure these
requirements are followed consistently. Set-aside requirements help to maximize small
business contracting opportunities in the Federal marketplace. Greater management
attention to the use of set-asides below the SAT can help the department meet our small
business goals.
Section 15U) of the Small Business Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) at FAR 13 .003(b)(l), require contracting officers to set aside contracts above the
$3,000 micro-purchase threshold and below the $150,000 SAT for small business, unless
the contracting officer determines there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers
from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of
market prices, quality and delivery. This is known as the "rule of two." FAR 19.5022(a) requires the contracting officer to document the file if a set-aside is not used in
connection with the award of a contract in this dollar range.
As a department, DoD has awarded 71% of contracts with dollar values equal to or
less than the SAT to small business from 1 October 12 through 21 June 12, which
accounted for 68% of total dollars eligible for small business. Also, only 47% of actions
and 52% of the dollars awarded to small business resulted from small business set-asides.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS

4
This indicates that the "rule of two" is not used to the maximum extent practicable under
SAT as required by statute.
To help DoD increase its contracting with small businesses, please take the
following steps in conjunction with every new contract award that has an anticipated
dollar value exceeding $3,000 but not exceeding the SAT:
Automatically reserve the work for small business concerns and set aside the
contract for small business, unless there is not a reasonable expectation of
obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are
competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery.
If the work is not set aside for small business, document in the contract file the
reason for acquiring the service or product on an unrestricted basis. Such
documentation shall be completed using the DD 2579, which must be coordinated
with the contracting activity small business specialist in accordance with Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Subpart 219 .201(d)(10).
Please ensure appropriate internal controls are used to monitor compliance with
the steps described above. For example, contracting activities may decide to sample
contract files to review market research and other documents explaining why your
respective component or agency purchased the product or service on an unrestricted
basis.
Your commitment and efforts to ensure that DoD meets and hopefully exceeds its
small business contracting goals are greatly appreciated.
The staff points of contact are Ms. Cassandra R. Freeman, 703-693-7062 or
cassandra.freeman@osd.mil, for procurement policy; and Ms. Wendy Despres, 571-3726310 or wendy.despres@osd.mil, for small business policy.
~/P--
Andre J. Gudger, Director

Office of Small Business Programs
cc:
Directors, DoD Office of Small Business
Programs
2
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
SB Awards Under SAT (contd)

5
Other Than SB Under the SAT
Source: FPDS-NG Small Business Achievement Report a/o 22 Oct 2012
OTSB $ (Millions)
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$225.88
42.43%
$ = Obligations under SAT going to OTSB

% = Total obligations under SAT going OTSB
$200.18
37.86%
FY11
FY12
$59.49
36.92%
$43.19
32.41%
$36.37
25.44%
$30.71
25.35%
$30.95 $26.66
23.14% 24.18%
$29.79 $11.17 $16.63

38.46% 26.94% 30.67%
$3.16
$11.24
$9.31
$2.97
28.90% 30.82% 20.83% 37.72%
$5.79
$3.98
$0.19
29.48% 63.81% 32.11%
$21.08
33.19%
$9.39
28.91%
$3.98
$2.02
$0.22
20.83% 48.72% 46.64%
$12.87 $10.48
28.28 24.97%
$6.50
25.39
$5.37
$4.41
34.29% 54.62%
$0
Total potential benefit to SBs ~0.25% -- but ITS THE LAW

EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
Small Source Right Value Big Performance
Exhibit 10A AQCMemo_FAR19_11Jul13t ( MG Masiello )

6
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
Exhibit 25 USD(ATL) Signed Memo to Workforce BBP 2 0 (13 Nov 12) wATTCHS (KENDALL)
7
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
8
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
9
BETTER BUYING POWER 2.0 INITIATIVES DESCRIPTIONS

Achieve Affordable Programs
Mandate affordability as a requirement: The initiative to provide affordability caps for

unit production cost and sustainment costs was put in place two years ago and will continue.
Affordability caps force prioritization of requirements, enabling cost trades and ensuring that
programs which are currently too expensive in future budgets to be affordable from
continuing.
Institute a system of investment planning to derive affordability caps: This has been
implemented on a case-by-case basis as programs have entered the acquisition process. This
initiative will make long-term capital investment analysis covering product lifecycles of 30
or 40 years a standard part of the acquisition process under DoDD 5000.02. Service and
component resource managers and leadership will conduct portfolio analysis to limit future
investment limitations on a capital investment portfolio of products, e.g., ground combat
vehicles or surface combatants.
Enforce affordability caps: After two years of imposing affordability caps, we are now at
the point where this initiative will have to be enforced if it is going to be successful at
preventing spending on products that will be too expensive to be procured in meaningful
quantities. This task falls to senior leadership, including the DAE, SAEs, and CAEs, who
must work with the Service and Component leadership to halt programs that will not be
within the established cap unless tradeoffs to reduce cost are implemented. Unless this is
done, the Department will continue to spend billions on development and initial production
of programs that are ultimately canceled or curtailed.
Control Costs Throughout the Product Lifecycle
Implement should cost based management: Should cost, the concept that our managers
should set cost targets below independent cost estimates and manage with the intent to
achieve them, is well on its way to becoming part of the DoD culture. This effort is
fundamental to cost control and deserves continued emphasis. Proactively controlling cost is
everyones business. Savings will continue to be applied as close to their origin as Service
and Department priorities allow. Successful should cost management should be recognized
and rewarded by the chain of command and by personnel systems.
Eliminate redundancy within Warfighter portfolios: Duplicate or redundant efforts occur

at the program level due to constraints in the component requirements process. The
Department will identify synergies for existing and planned programs across the Services
during MDD reviews, Program Budget Reviews (PB build), and across all levels of the buy.
Institute a system to measure the cost performance of programs and institutions and to
assess the effectiveness of acquisition policies: The Department will become more datadriven in assessing its own and industrys performance at achieving improved productivity.
The Department will develop metrics for the programs and institutions (government and nongovernment) within the acquisition system and assess performance to better understand best
practices in industry and government. The first set of data derived from this initiative will be
published in early 2013.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
10
Build stronger partnerships with the requirements community to control costs: This is
an area of continuing emphasis in which good progress has been made, but more needs to be
done. More than anything else, requirements drive costs. The requirements and acquisition
communities must cooperate more closely and continuously to ensure that requirements are
technically achievable and affordable so that operational and Service leadership can make
informed decisions about the costs associated with varying levels of performance. For Major
Programs, the DAE is working closely with the VCJCS and the JROC, and each Service has
taken steps in the right direction. However, more needs to be done to ensure well informed
requirements decisions that balance cost and performance throughout product lifecycles.
Increase the incorporation of defense exportability features in initial designs: Foreign

sales of and cooperation on US defense products provide a range of win-win benefits:
reduced costs, improved US competitiveness, stronger ties to friends and allies, and
improved interoperability. Rather than waiting until products are fully designed and in
production for US use, we should assess and incorporate exportability design features and
any needed anti-tamper features early in the acquisition process. This will reduce the cost of
exportable versions of US systems and ensure that they are available for sale sooner,
benefiting all concerned.
Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry and Government
Align profitability more tightly with Department goals: The Department will reassess
how it provides incentives to industry so that they are as cost effective as possible at
achieving the Departments goals. The desire is to reward successful contractor performance
that has high value to the Department and which might not be achieved without the
motivation provided by the incentives. Both basic contract types and special incentive fee
structures will be reassessed over the next few months to see if a better alignment can be
accomplished.
Employ appropriate contract types: The original BBP emphasized the use of Fixed Price
Incentive (FPI) contracts. In BBP 2.0, we are refining our guidance to emphasize the use of
the appropriate contract vehicle for the product or services being acquired. The DFAR and
FAR provide for a range of contract types for a reason: one size does not fit all. This
initiative will focus on improving the training of management and contracting personnel in
the appropriate use of all contract types.
Increase use of Fixed Price Incentive contracts in Low Rate Initial Production: One
phase of acquisition where FPI contracts are particularly appropriate is during the early
stages of transition from development to production, low rate initial production (LRIP),
particularly the earlier lots of LRIP. We will continue to emphasize the use of FPI during
this phase.
Better define value in best value competitions: In competitive bidding processes,

industry tends to default to threshold performance levels because they are less costly and
source selections seldom give predictable credit for performance above threshold. In
addition, when the Department buys non-developmental items (NDI) or near-NDI products,
it often must select among products with varying levels of performance and with inherent
cost differentials. The Department needs to improve its ability to define the value to the
Department of performance that is above minimum levels so that it can make appropriate
source selections and so that industry can bid intelligently. This will spur innovation by
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
11
providing a predictable basis by which companies can bid enhanced performance with the
knowledge that any increased costs are within an acceptable range.
When LPTA is used, define Technically Acceptable to ensure needed quality: Industry
has expressed concerns about the use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA)
selection criteria that essentially default to the lowest price bidder, independent of quality.
Where LPTA is used, the Department needs to define TA appropriately to ensure adequate
quality.
Institute a superior supplier incentive program: This is an item from BBP 1.0 that has
not been implemented. The Navy is currently developing a pilot program for DoD, with the
intent to recognize and reward contractors who demonstrate superior performance by
focusing on cost, schedule, performance, quality, and responsiveness. The program will be
initiated in the next few months.
Increase effective use of Performance-Based Logistics: There is sufficient data on the

effectiveness of PBL at reducing cost and improving support performance to conclude that if
it is effectively implemented and managed, PBL yields significant benefits. Key activities
include increasing the knowledge base of PBL through standard processes, tools, and training
Reduce backlog of DCAA Audits without compromising effectiveness: The Department

has a significant backlog in both closeout and pre-award audits. DCAA, with the assistance
DCMA and DPAP, is increasing audit resources and developing a risk-based process for
reducing the audit backlog. We expect to make major gains in reducing audit-associated
delays in both contract closeouts and pre-award audits in 2013.
Expand programs to leverage industrys IR&D: This is an initiative that began under
BBP 1.0 and will continue under BBP 2.0. The overall effort requires continued leadership
support to keep the momentum going and preserve the progress made over the past year.
Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy
Reduce frequency of OSD-level reviews: This continues the initiative to lower the
frequency of OSD-level program reviews to those necessary to support major investment
decisions by the USD(AT&L), to respond to poor program performance, or to assess early
indications of problems with execution.
Re-emphasize AE, PEO, and PM responsibility and accountability: Over time the
Department has moved away from the clean lines of responsibility and accountability created
under Goldwater Nichols. This initiative reinforces the roles of the acquisition chain of
command, in the Services and in the Department.
Eliminate requirements imposed on industry where costs outweigh benefits: This will
continue the initiative to identify non-value added processes that the Department may be
imposing on industry. The intent is to work with industry to collect data that will enable the
Department to identify requirements that can be reduced or eliminated to reduce cost without
adversely affecting performance.
Reduce cycle times while ensuring sound investment decisions: This initiative will assess
the root causes for long product cycle times, particularly long development cycles, with the
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
12
goal of significantly reducing the amount of time, and therefore cost, it takes to bring a
product from concept to fielding. A full range of factors oversight activities, funding
stability, contracting lead time, requirements processes, technical complexity, use of risk
reduction activities, and testing requirements will be considered as possible contributing
factors.
Promote Effective Competition
Emphasizing competition strategies and creating and maintaining competitive

environments: This initiative continues the effort to stress creating and maintaining a
competitive environment that provides the motivation to control and reduce cost. The
concept includes a full range of mechanisms that program managers should consider and
incorporate in acquisition strategies and in activities conducted outside the program itself.
Enforce open system architectures and effectively manage technical data rights: This
item is continued from BBP 1.0 and will focus on improving the Departments early planning
for open architectures and the successful execution of the plan to provide for open
architectures and modular systems. This will include the development of a business model
and associated intellectual property strategy (data rights planning) that can be implemented
over the lifecycle of the product, starting while competition still exists.
Increase small business roles and opportunities: Small businesses, as both prime
contractors to the Department and sub-contractors within the supply chain, are effective
sources of innovation and reduced cost. The Department will continue its emphasis on
improving small business opportunities.
Use the Technology Development phase for true risk reduction: The data on a number of
programs has demonstrated that Technology Demonstration (TD) phase competitive
prototyping is often not effective in reducing the risk associated with the products being
developed in the programs EMD phase. Proof of concept demonstrations that purport to
provide Technology Readiness Level 6 maturity, but which do not have direct traceability to
the proposed product design, are being used to win EMD programs instead of to reduce
actual risk. This initiative will improve the Departments ability to ensure that TD phase
activities reduce the actual risk associated with the product to be developed.
Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services

The Department will continue and expand upon the initiatives already begun in this area.
Contracting for Services is one of the areas which we believe has the greatest potential for cost
reduction and improved efficiencies.
Assign senior managers for acquisition of services: This initiative was completed under
BBP 1.0; however, the Department will continue to emphasize the role of these senior
managers in the Military Departments and the Components and assess their effectiveness in
improving the acquisition of services.
Adopt uniform services market segmentation: The Department has issued a directive
detailing implementation guidance to standardize service taxonomy into six categories. We
will focus on the market segments with the greatest potential to reduce costs, and best
practices will be identified and expanded in all of the categories.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
13
Improve requirements definition; prevent requirements creep: The Department will

continue this initiative. We have developed tools to assist users in writing Performance
Work Statements, Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans, and Performance Requirements
Summaries, and we will increase the training of cross-functional teams involved in
formulating requirements for service contracts.
Increase use of market research: This BBP 1.0 initiative requires additional work. We are
establishing a market research portal to enhance market research and facilitate small business
opportunities.
Increase small business participation: A number of steps in this area have been
implemented; however, we believe that the increased use of small businesses in service
contracting can be a source of additional cost saving and we will continue to emphasize the
participation of small businesses in this area.
Strengthen contract management outside the normal acquisition chain installations,

etc.: A significant amount of service contracting takes place outside of acquisition activities
such as research and development or product support. For example, installations of all types
contract for a range of services in various categories. More proactive management of these
contracted activities is expected to yield additional savings.
Expand use of requirements review boards and tripwires: This initiative will expand on
the use of specific best practices in service contract management that have been identified in
some commands.
Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce

This new category emphasizes the most important single factor in the performance of the
Defense Acquisition System: the capability of the professionals in our workforce, particularly
the key leaders who implement the system and develop the people who will follow them. The
total acquisition workforce includes program management, engineering, contracting, and product
support disciplines engaged in a wide range of activities throughout the product lifecycle.
Establish higher standards for key leadership positions; establish stronger professional
qualification requirements for all acquisition specialties: Our key leaders must have the
required qualifications, not just certification, for the positions they hold this includes the
appropriate amount of relevant experience, education, and training. Current qualification
standards do not emphasize the hands-on experience necessary to become truly proficient
enough to take on the responsibilities associated with being a key acquisition leader. The
Department has many highly qualified acquisition leaders, but the bench is not deep enough
and there is significant room for improvement. Pilot programs have been initiated to develop
appropriate requirements for qualification for key leader positions.
Increase the recognition of excellence in acquisition management: Managing a major

program or a multi-billion dollar logistics or other service contract is a high level of
responsibility that demands special ability that should be recognized. While the Department
does this to a point, this initiative recognizes the need to raise the recognition and prestige of
the acquisition workforce at all levels within the Department.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
14
Continue to increase the cost consciousness of the acquisition workforce change the
culture: Under BBP 1.0 we made significant strides in this direction, but there is still work
to be done and this area will require continuous attention. Perverse incentives to spend the
budget, such as obligation rate criteria and leadership emphasis on getting on contract instead
of getting the best business deal, need to be countered. There is good recognition in the
Department that cost matters a great deal now that budgets have stopped growing, but this is
an area in which we must continue to raise the consciousness of the workforce if we are to
permanently change the Departments culture.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
Exhibit 26 USA003951-12_OSBP_D DPAP IncreasingOpport for Sm Bus Memo ( GINMAN GRUDGER)

15
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
Exhibit 26 USA003951-12_OSBP_D DPAP IncreasingOpport for Sm Bus Memo ( GINMAN GRUDGER)

16
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
Exhibit 27 Executive Office of the President June 6, 2012 MEMO (JORDAN - MILLS)
17
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

O F F I C E O F MA N A G E ME N T A N D B U D G E T
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 6, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY SECRETARIES
CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICERS
SENIOR PROCUREMENT EXECUTIVES
AGENCY SMALL BUSINESS DIRECTORS
FROM:
Joseph G. Jordan
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
Office of Management and Budget
Karen G. Mills
Administrator
Small Business Administration
SUBJECT:
Follow-up: April 25, 2012 Meeting of the Small Business Procurement

Group
Thank you for your participation at the White House Small Business Procurement Group
meeting on April 25. During the meeting, each agency was asked to take the following three
immediate steps, under your leadership, to ensure small businesses are utilized to the maximum
extent practicable: (1) maximize opportunities for small businesses when making small dollar
awards, (2) increase opportunities for small businesses under multiple award contracts, and (3)
strengthen accountability for small business goal achievement. Additional information on each
of these steps is provided below. As we move forward, each agency should ensure program,
contracting, and small business policy staff understand their agencys small business contracting
goals and the tools available for meeting their goals.
Maximizing Opportunities for Small Businesses Under the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold
Pursuant to longstanding statutory requirements in the Small Business Act, agencies are
required to automatically set aside work for small businesses that is equal to or less than the
value of the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) (generally $150,000) unless the contracting
officer determines the rule of two cannot be met i.e., there is not a reasonable expectation of
obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in
terms of market prices, quality, and delivery. However, a third-party analysis of data in the
Federal Procurement Data System suggests that a significant amount of work under the SAT is
not going to small businesses, including for products and services in industries where small
businesses are typically well represented. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses
are being lost, and that agencies must take additional steps to consistently apply set-asides in the
manner prescribed in law and regulation.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
18
2
Accordingly, we are asking that all agencies review their small business contracting
practices for purchases under the SAT and make adjustments where appropriate. At a minimum,
agencies should remind their contracting components of responsibilities to set aside contracts
whose value is equal to or less than the SAT unless the rule of two is not met, to properly
document the contract file when a set-aside is not used, and to maintain appropriate internal
controls that ensure consistent application of these requirements. A sample memorandum to
send to your agencys acquisition workforce is included as Attachment 2 for your consideration.
In the near future, the Small Business Administration (SBA) will provide each agency
with an analysis of its contracts falling under the SAT that have not been awarded to small
businesses. SBA expects agencies to monitor their SAT performance and take appropriate
actions when missed opportunities to make contract awards to small businesses are identified.
We ask that all agencies report to OMB:
(1) steps taken to ensure internal controls are in place for the consistent application of small
business contracting requirements under the SAT, (note SAT - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD)
(2) steps taken (or planned) to increase utilization of small businesses where awards under
the SAT are being made to other than small businesses, and
(3) if no steps have been taken, why no action has taken place.
Increasing Small Business Utilization on Multiple Award Contracts
In working together to enact section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public
Law 111-240, both the Administration and Congress recognized that significant untapped
opportunities exist to increase small business participation on multiple award contracts.1 To
capitalize on these opportunities, section 1331 directed the Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, in consultation
with the Administrator of General Services, to establish regulations under which Federal
agencies may, at their discretion, use partial contract set-asides, contract reserves, and order setasides under multiple award contracts.
As a first step, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued an
interim rule on November 2, 2011 to provide guidance on the section 1331 authorities. A
number of agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have reported success
stories and best practices using the interim rule. Information on these successful applications of
section 1331 is available at https://max.omb.gov/community/x/EwFoIQ.
While use of the section 1331 tools is discretionary, the responsibility to give small
businesses maximum practicable opportunity is mandatory, and agencies will be held
accountable for taking all reasonable steps to meet their small business goals. This means that
Multiple award contracts are large umbrella contracts that are awarded to a number of companies who then
compete for specific orders after the umbrella contracts have been awarded. Over the life of a typical multiple
award contract, which is often 5 years or more, hundreds of millions, if not billions, are spent through these types of
vehicles.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
19
3
each agency must determine how best to use the section 1331 tools with those tools previously
available to increase awards to small businesses and help the Federal government meet its
government-wide small business contracting goals each year. To help agencies measure their
progress, SBA will provide agencies with an analysis of their task and delivery order spending
(including spending under the SAT) that has not been awarded to small businesses.
To ensure the benefits of the FAR interim rule are being maximized, we ask that agencies
take the six steps listed in Attachment 1 and report to OMB:
(1) actions taken to accomplish the six steps,
(2) if action was not taken, why no action was taken, and
(3) when the agency reasonably expects to complete the six steps.
A sample memorandum to send to your agencys acquisition workforce is included as
Attachment 3 for your consideration.
Strengthening Accountability for Small Business Goal Achievement
Achievement of Federal small business contracting goals depends greatly on effectively
communicating those goals throughout agencies and with clear lines of accountability. To that
end, we are asking each of you to hold senior leadership accountable for meeting your agencys
small business goals, including any of the statutory socio-economic goals (Small Disadvantaged
Business, HUBZone Small Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Business). We encourage you to include agency small business
contracting goals in the performance evaluations of all Senior Executive Service (SES) staff
members who oversee your agencys acquisition workforce.
Agencies that have implemented performance evaluations containing small business
contracting goal elements report that senior level leadership accountability plays a critical role in
ensuring that those agencies meet or exceed their small business contracting and socio-economic
goals. To that end, we ask agencies to report to OMB on the steps they have taken to hold senior
leadership accountable for small business goals.
Agencies should submit their report covering the initiatives discussed above to Susan
Truslow of OMBs Office of Federal Procurement Policy at struslow@omb.eop.gov by July 9,
2012.
Attachments
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
20
Attachment 1
Short Term Steps for Increasing Small Business Opportunities
Under Multiple Award Contracts
To help ensure the benefits of section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 are being
maximized, agencies should take the six steps listed below.1
1. Issue a memorandum to the acquisition workforce reminding them of the interim FAR
rule on section 1331 and encouraging use of these tools. Consistent with expectations
announced by the FAR Council when the interim rule was published,2 the memorandum
should briefly review the various actions that can be taken under the interim rule and cite best
practices and success stories (which could include those of Department of Homeland
Security, if the agency does not yet have successes of its own to which it can point). We
recommend that the memorandum be sent from the Deputy Secretary, or equivalent official,
by June 15, 2012. A sample template is provided for your consideration in Attachment 3.
2. Consider requiring order set-asides under multiple award contracts if the agency is not
currently meeting its small business goals. Historically, set-asides have proven to be the
most powerful small business contracting tool. Accordingly, an increased commitment to
order set-asides is likely to be a highly effective means to help an agency improve its small
business contracting results and meet its small business goals. This can be achieved by
committing to use order set asides unless there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining
offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of
market prices, quality, and delivery (i.e., unless the rule of two is not met).
Since the ultimate discretion of whether to apply a section 1331 tool rests with the
contracting agency, the agency will need to determine the most appropriate application of a
required set-aside. That is, the agency will have to decide whether to apply the tool to all of
the agencys contracting activities, an identified set of contracting activities, or a discrete set
of acquisitions defined by industry or dollar threshold.3 The sample template includes
alternative language to address mandatory application of set-asides to the extent the agency
Any planned actions in response to this list should include a date for completion, which should be no later than
August 31, 2012.
When the interim rule was published, the FAR Council made clear that it expected agencies to take advantage of
set-asides under multiple-award contracts by (1) identifying existing or prospective multiple-award contracts with
small business contract holders where order set-asides may be appropriate, and (2) maximizing opportunities for
small business by utilizing order set-asides under the Multiple Awards Schedule or Federal Supply Schedule
Programs.
Agencies are encouraged to use the MaxPrac tool of the Department of Defense, which helps agencies to analyze
their spend data and determine where small business capacity and opportunities are greatest. The Department of
Defense has updated the MaxPrac tool with FY 2011 data, which is available as a zip file for download at
http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/docs/CivilianAgencyMaxPracFY11-0312.zip. Questions regarding access and use of
the tool may be directed to Ms. Carol Brown carol.a.brown@osd.mil in the Office of Small Business Programs in
the Department of Defense.
3
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
21
2
deems appropriate. We recommend that any determination to require set-asides remain in
effect at least until the agency is meeting its small business goals.
3. Bilaterally modify existing multiple-award contracts to provide for order set-asides.
When the interim rule was published, the FAR Council encouraged agencies to modify, on a
bilateral basis, existing multiple-award contracts if the remaining period of performance
extends at least six months after the effective date, and the amount of work or number of
orders expected under the remaining performance period is substantial. The sample template
includes language regarding the bilateral modification of existing contracts.
4. Strengthen internal controls. Contract files should appropriately document how section
1331 tools were considered. If the agency is not currently meeting its various small business
contracting goals, contracting components should also consider sampling contract files to
review market research and other documents explaining how section 1331 tools were
considered and, if not used, why the agency purchased the product or service on an
unrestricted basis.
5. Review SBAs proposed rule on section 1331. On May 16, 2012, SBA published in the
Federal Register a proposed rule providing more specific guidance to ensure that meaningful
consideration of set-asides and reserves is given in connection with the award of multiple
award contracts and task and delivery orders placed under them, and that those tools are used
in a consistent manner. 77 FR 29130. Agencies are strongly encouraged to review the rule
and provide directly to SBAs Dean Koppel at dean.koppel@sba.gov by July 16, 2012 any
suggestions for improving the rule. SBA is especially interested in changes that will make
the rule simpler, clearer, and more conducive to encouraging maximum use of the section
1331 tools by the agencies.
6. Ensure the workforce is trained. The General Services Administration has posted a set of
frequently asked questions, (FAQs), available at
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113371, to explain how set-asides can be applied when
placing orders under Multiple Award Schedules contracts. Agencies are encouraged to
review the FAQs and also to take advantage of free training that GSA offers on order setasides. To access GSAs webinar training, please visit interact.gsa.gov and Continuous
Learning Module (CLM), Basic Contracting for GSA Schedules (FAC023) at
icatalog.dau.mil. To sign up for additional training, agencies should contact Steve Sizemore
in GSAs Federal Acquisition Service at steve.sizemore@gsa.gov.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
22
Attachment 2
Sample Memorandum to send to the Acquisition Workforce in your agency
DATE:
May XX, 2012
FROM:
[Name], Deputy Secretary (or equivalent)

[Name], Chief Acquisition Officer, Senior Procurement Executive
[Name], Director, Office of Small and Disadvantage Business Utilization
SUBJECT:
Increasing opportunities for small businesses through small business set-asides

under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold
The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of longstanding statutory

requirements to set aside contracts for small businesses where the contract value is equal to or
less than the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) unless the rule of two is not met, and
request that you redouble efforts to ensure these requirements are followed consistently. Setaside requirements help to maximize small business contracting opportunities in the Federal
marketplace. Greater management attention to the use of set-asides below the SAT can help our
agency meet and exceed its small business contracting requirements each year.
Under section 15(j) of the Small Business Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
contracting officers are required to set aside contracts above the micro-purchase threshold1 and
below the SAT2 for small business unless the contracting officer determines there is not a
reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns
Under the FAR, micro-purchase means an acquisition of supplies or services using simplified acquisition
procedures, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold.
Micro-purchase threshold means $3,000, except it means
(1) For acquisitions of construction subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, $2,000;
(2) For acquisitions of services subject to the Service Contract Act, $2,500; and
(3) For acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to
support a contingency operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or
radiological attack, as described in [FAR] 13.201(g)(1), except for construction subject to the Davis-Bacon Act
(41 U.S.C. 1903)
(i) $15,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the
United States; and
(ii) $30,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the
United States.
1
Under the FAR, simplified acquisition threshold means $150,000, except for acquisitions of supplies or
services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation or to
facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack (41 U.S.C. 1903), the
term means
(1) $300,000 for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States;
and
(2) $1 million for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United
States.
2
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
23
2
that are competitive in terms of market prices, quality and delivery. FAR 19.502-2(a) requires
the contracting officer to document the file if a set-aside is not used in connection with the award
of a contract in this dollar range.
Further, [AGENCY] has awarded [##% - SBA will soon provide agencies with a SAT
performance analysis] of contracts with dollar values equal to or less than the SAT to small
businesses, falling short of our statutory requirement of awarding 100% of contracts below the
SAT to small businesses when the rule of two is met.
To help the agency increase its contracting with small businesses, please take the
following steps in conjunction with every new contract award that has an anticipated dollar value
exceeding $3,000 but not exceeding the SAT:
Automatically reserve the work for small business concerns and set aside the contract for
small business, unless there is not a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers from two or
more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices,
quality, and delivery.
If the work is not set aside for small business, document in the contract file the reason for
acquiring the service or product on an unrestricted basis.
Please ensure appropriate internal controls are used to monitor compliance with the steps
described above. For example, contracting activities may decide to sample contract files to
review market research and other documents explaining why the agency purchased the product
or service on an unrestricted basis.
Thank you for your commitment to meeting and exceeding [AGENCYS] small business
contracting goals. We appreciate all of your efforts in utilizing small businesses to meet our
requirements.
cc:
Agency Chief Acquisition Officer

Agency Senior Procurement Executive
Agency Small Business Director
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
24
Attachment 3
Sample Memorandum to send to the Acquisition Workforce in your agency
DATE:
May XX, 2012
FROM:
[Name], Deputy Secretary (or equivalent)

[Name], Chief Acquisition Officer, Senior Procurement Executive
[Name], Director, Office of Small and Disadvantage Business Utilization
SUBJECT:
Maximizing Small Business Utilization on Multiple Award Contracts
The purpose of this Memorandum is to remind you of provisions in the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that became effective November 2, 2011, providing for the use of
order set-asides in connection with multiple award contracts. In working together to enact
section 1331 of the Small Business Jobs Act, both the Administration and Congress recognized
that untapped opportunities exist to increase small business participation on multiple award
contracts. They further recognized that set-asides historically have proven to be the most
powerful small business contracting tool. For these reasons, you are asked to give increased
attention to set-asides when placing orders under multiple award contracts.
Section 1331 of the Jobs Act directed the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA), in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, to establish regulations under which Federal agencies may, at
their discretion: (1) set aside part or parts of a multiple award contract for small business, (2)
reserve one or more awards on multiple award contracts that are established through full and
open competition for small business, and (3) set aside orders under multiple award contracts for
small businesses.
On November 2, 2011, an interim FAR rule was published to provide agencies with
initial guidance for taking advantage of the section 1331 authorities. With respect to order setasides, in particular, the interim rule:
makes clear that set-asides may be used in connection with the placement of orders under
multiple award contracts, notwithstanding the otherwise applicable requirement to provide
each contract holder a fair opportunity to be considered;
makes clear that set-asides may be utilized under any of the various small business programs
(i.e. Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, HUBZone Small Business, WomanOwned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business);
further makes clear that order set-asides may be used in connection with the placement of
orders and blanket purchase agreements under Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts;
and
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
25
amends existing solicitation provisions and contract clauses to provide notice of set-asides.
To ensure the benefits of order set-asides are being maximized, contracting activities
should take the following immediate steps:
(1) Identify prospective multiple-award contracts with small business contract holders where
order set-asides may be appropriate and either preserve the option to set aside individual
orders or commit to using order set-asides unless there is not a reasonable expectation of
obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are
competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery (i.e., unless the rule of two
is not met at the order level).
(2) Identify existing multiple-award contracts with small business contract holders where
order set-asides may be appropriate and either preserve the option to set-aside orders or
commit to using order set-asides. This may require bilateral modifications, which should
be considered if the remaining period of performance extends at least six months after the
effective date, and the amount of work or number of orders expected under the remaining
performance period is substantial.
(3) Consider order set-asides under MAS contracts. The General Services Administration
has posted a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), available at
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113371, to explain how set-asides may be applied
when placing orders under MAS contracts. Agencies are encouraged to review the FAQs
and also to take advantage of free training that GSA offers on order set-asides. To sign
up for training, agencies should contact Steve Sizemore in GSAs Federal Acquisition
Service at steve.sizemore@gsa.gov.
(4) Review success stories in connection with the use of the interim FAR rule, available at
https://max.omb.gov/community/x/EwFoIQ, and document examples of successes as you
identify them.
(5) Ensure that contract files appropriately documents how section 1331 tools were
considered.
[If the agency is not currently meeting all of its small business goals, consider the following
alternative language for the steps listed above:
[AGENCY] is not currently meeting one or more of its small business goals. To ensure
the benefits of order set-asides are being maximized, contracting activities should take the
following immediate steps:
(1) Identify prospective multiple-award contracts with small business contract holders where
order set-asides may be appropriate and commit to using order set asides unless a
determination is made prior to placing the order that there is not a reasonable expectation
of obtaining offers from two or more responsible small business concerns that are
competitive in terms of market prices, quality and delivery (i.e., the rule of two is not
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
26
3
met at the order level). This commitment should be applied to the following new
multiple award contracts: [Agency should identify the appropriate scope of the
commitment: all prospective multiple award contracts / multiple award contracts
awarded by the following components (identify) / multiple award contracts that are
predominantly for the following products or services (identify) / all orders within the
following dollar range (identify)]. For all other new multiple award contracts, either
preserve the right to use set-asides or commit to using set asides.
(2) Identify existing multiple-award contracts (with the scope identified in item (1), above)
with small business contract holders where order set-asides may be appropriate and
commit to using order set-asides. This may require bilateral modifications, which should
be considered if the remaining period of performance extends at least six months after the
effective date, and the amount of work or number of orders expected under the remaining
performance period is substantial.
(3) Commit to order set-asides under MAS contracts for orders falling within the scope
identified in item (1). GSA has posted a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs),
available at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/113371, to explain how set-asides may be
applied when placing orders under MAS contracts. Agencies are encouraged to review
the FAQs and also to take advantage of free training that GSA offers on order set-asides.
To sign up for training, agencies should contact Steve Sizemore in GSAs Federal
Acquisition Service at steve.sizemore@gsa.gov.]
(4) Review success stories in connection with the use of the interim FAR rule, available at
https://max.omb.gov/community/x/EwFoIQ, and document examples of successes as you
identify them.
(5) Ensure that contract files appropriately documents how section 1331 tools were
considered.
(6) Sample contract files to review market research and other documents explaining how
order set-asides were considered and, if not used, why the agency purchased the product
or service on an unrestricted basis.]
On May 16, 2012, SBA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule providing more
specific guidance addressing all three components of section 1331, namely (1) partial contract
set-asides, (2) contract reserves, and (3) order set-asides. The purpose of SBAs rulemaking is to
ensure both that meaningful consideration of set-asides and reserves is given in connection with
the award and placement of task and delivery orders under multiple award contracts and that
those tools are used in a consistent manner. You are urged to review the rule and provide
feedback to [insert agency POC] by [insert date that will allow the agency to submit
consolidated feedback directly to SBA by July 9, 2012]. You should focus on changes that
will make the rule simpler, clearer, and more conducive to encouraging maximum use of the
tools by the agency.
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
27
4
Contracting activities should report on actions taken or planned in response to this
memorandum to [insert POC] by [insert date that will allow agency to report back to OMB
by July 9, 2012]. Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your ongoing
commitment to help our agency meet and exceed its small business contracting goals.
cc:
Agency Chief Acquisition Officer

Agency Senior Procurement Executive
Agency Small Business Director
EXHIBIT 10 MEMOS
7/24/2014
LOGIN
Board of Directors | FedBid
REGISTER CONTACT
BUYERS
SELLERS
MARKETPLACE
ABOUT
RESOURCES
FedBid Home Board of Directors
Board of Directors
FedBids mission, vision and growth is fueled by innovative, passionate and proven business
and thought leaders.
Ali Saadat
Ted Leonsis
Susan L. Bostrom
General George W. Casey Jr.
Kim D. Cooke
Scott Hilleboe
Lance L. Weaver
Leadership
Executive Leaders
Senior Leaders
Board of Directors
Key Advisors & Consultants
Ali Saadat
Board Chair, Founder, Chief Executive Officer
A lifelong entrepreneur with a passion for using disruptive technology, service and
business model innovations to improve business and market value, Mr. Saadat propels
FedBid forward with over 35 successful years in leading and building information
technology and Internet industry companies. As FedBids CEO, he uses his vision,
oversight and leadership to guide the development and implementation of FedBids
overall business strategy. Under his leadership over the past decade, FedBid has grown
to a global community of Sellers actively competing for the business of federal and
Fortune 500 Buyers, with $billions worth of goods and services awarded annually. In
January 2012, Mr. Saadat led the company in securing a significant investment from
Revolution Growth, a venture capital fund created by Steve Case, Ted Leonsis and
Donn Davis. Mr. Saadat is also passionate about philanthropy. Working with nonprofit
agencies to help them more effectively give children and families the support they need
to succeed has been the cornerstone of a wide variety of philanthropic efforts throughout
his life. Saadat earned a Master of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from George
Washington University. A dedicated husband, father and grandfather, Mr. Saadat firmly
believes in making time for all that leads to a happy, healthy and worthwhile life.
Ted Leonsis
Board Vice Chairman
Ted Leonsis, a partner in the Revolution Growth fund, is a nationally renowned
entrepreneur, investor and business-builder. Mr. Leonsis has been involved with
Revolution Growth since its founding, as an investor in and chairman of Revolution
Money and Clearspring. He is the founder, chairman and majority owner of Monumental
Sports & Entertainment, which owns the Washington Capitals (NHL), the Washington
Wizards (NBA), the Washington Mystics and the Verizon Center and he sits on the
board of directors of several leading companies ranging from American Express to
Groupon. Mr. Leonsis retired from active management of AOL in 2006, where during the
http://www.fedbid.com/about/directors/
1/4
7/24/2014
previous 13 years he was an inspirational leader and held a number of senior positions,
including vice chairman and president and worked closely with Steve Case for a decade
to build AOL into the worlds leading internet company with a market value at its peak in
excess of $100 billion. He also founded SnagFilms, the Internets leading site for online
audiences to find, watch and share documentary films. Early in his career Mr. Leonsis
founded several technology-enabled consumer companies, including Redgate
Communications, where he is credited for coining the phrase new media. He has been
named Washingtons Businessman of the Year, a Washingtonian of the Year, one of the
20 most influential people in sports and one of the top 10 entrepreneurs of the year. He
blogs daily at TedsTake.com.
Susan L. Bostrom
Board Member
Susan Bostrom is a top marketing expert and accomplished thought leader, bringing
more than 25 years of multifaceted marketing and business leadership experience to
FedBids board, including that from her recent position as executive vice president
(EVP) and chief marketing officer (CMO) of Cisco Systems, Inc where she led Ciscos
strategy and implementation of all branding, advertising, digital and product marketing
efforts. During her 13 years with Cisco, Bostrom gained widespread acclaim and
respect for creating and evolving the companys impactful and effective, "Welcome to
the Human Network" campaign. She was also responsible for Ciscos Worldwide
Government Affairs organization and Small Business Council. Earlier in her Cisco
career, Bostrom was recognized for building the Internet Business Solutions Group
(IBSG), a proprietary consulting organization that advised Fortune 500 CEOs and global
government leaders on the use and business value of Internet applications. Prior Cisco,
Bostrom held leadership positions with FTP Software, National Semiconductor and
McKinsey & Company. Bostrom currently serves on the board of directors for Varian
Medical Systems, Cadence Design Systems and Marketo, Inc. Her nonprofit board
service includes Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Georgetown University. She also
serves on the advisory board of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
(SIEPR) and the Stanford Graduate School of Business Advisory Council. Bostrom
holds an MBA degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business and BS degree in
marketing from the University of Illinois.
General George W. Casey Jr.

Board Member
General George W. Casey Jr. is one of the most accomplished soldiers in U.S. history
and an authority on strategic leadership. General Casey is currently a member of the
board of trustees of Ride2Recovery, an organization that uses cycling as a means of
assisting the recovery of our wounded servicemen and women; a member of the board
of directors of Thanks U.S.A, a organization that provides scholarships to the children
and spouses of our servicemen and women; and he is the chairman of the military
advisory board of Viridis Learning, an educational software company that is working to
increase employment opportunities for our veterans. He is also a member of the board
of governors of Colt Defense, a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of small
arms and weapons systems. As the 36th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from April 2007
to 2011, General Casey is widely credited with restoring balance to the war-weary U.S.
Army, transforming and modernizing its operations and capabilities. Prior to this, from
July 2004 to February 2007, he commanded the Multi-National Force Iraq, a coalition of
more than 30 countries. On the home front, General Casey has been a stalwart
advocate for military families, expanding programs for the wounded, addressing the
2/4
7/24/2014
tough issues of substance abuse and suicide, reducing the stigma of combat stress
and trauma and providing long term support for survivors of the fallen. The son of
George William Casey, the decorated Major General who commanded the 1st Cavalry
Division during the Vietnam War and himself a father of a son who served, General
George W. Casey Jr. has enjoyed a long career of exemplary service as an American
soldier. He was commissioned a second lieutenant of Infantry from Georgetown
University School of Foreign Service in 1970. Throughout his career, he served in
operational assignments in Germany, Italy, Egypt, Bosnia, Iraq and the United States. He
has extensive command experience. General Casey holds a Masters degree in
International Relations from Denver University and has served as a Senior Fellow at the
Atlantic Council of the United States.
Kim D. Cooke
Board Member
Kim D. Cooke is a game-changing business beacon, financial strategist, investor and
legal advisor. He founded Blue Water Capital, L.L.C., a private venture capital firm, in
1995 and today serves as its chairman and managing director. Blue Water Capital
raised and managed close to $100 million in capital for investment in the technology
sector. Mr. Cooke has served as a member of the board of directors of EasyLink
Services, Intl., since December 2000 and was appointed the companys lead director in
November 2003 and as chairman of the board in September 2005. Trained as a
transactional lawyer, he has extensive business and legal experience working with
credit, financial services and technology companies in the United States, AMEA and
Latin America. Mr. Cooke has served on numerous corporate boards in his capacity at
Blue Water Capital. In addition to serving on FedBids board, he serves on the boards for
EasyLink Services, Intl., Company.com, Access Point Communications, Inc., Renaps
Technology, Inc. and Keel Point, LLC. His not for profit activities include service on the
board of Family Life, The Northville Educational Foundation, as president of the Northville
High School Mens Lacrosse and Living Hope International. Mr. Cooke received his JD
from the Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University and his LLM from the
American University Washington College of Law, with highest honors.
Scott Hilleboe
Board Member
Scott Hilleboe is a member of the investment team at Revolution Growth, which invests
in game-changing consumer technology businesses that disrupt multibillion dollar
industries. Mr. Hilleboe brings over 15 years of experience in operations, venture capital
investing and business development in the media, consumer, software and enabling
technology sectors to his role as a key advisor in building FedBids momentum. Prior to
joining Revolution Growth, Mr. Hilleboe was a managing director with Steamboat
Ventures, where led an impressive stream of investments including Fastclick (IPO and
then acquired by ValueClick), Greystripe (acquired by ValueClick), Kyte (acquired by KIT
Digital), MerchantCircle (acquired by Reply.com), MediaBank (merged to become
MediaOcean), Move Networks (acquired by EchoStar), PopularMedia (acquired by
StrongMail) and Quigo (acquired by AOL). These successes were built on earlier ones
gained as an investment professional with Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, where
he co-lead investments in Jareva Technologies (acquired by Symantec), Yosemite
Technologies (acquired by Barracuda Networks), Cenzicand Voltage
Security. Previously, Mr. Hilleboe worked at industry leading enterprises IBM, LaSalle
Partners and Synopsys, as well as a number of early stage technology companies. Mr.
Hilleboe currently serves on the board of directors of EdgeCast Networks and Elemental
3/4
7/24/2014
Technologies. He holds an MBA from Harvard Business School and a BS in Mechanical

Engineering, from the University of Washington, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa
and magna cum laude.
Lance L. Weaver
Board Member
Lance Weaver retired from Bank of America at the end of 2008 after eighteen years with
the Bank and part of the team that took MBNA public. Mr. Weaver served as an
Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Administrative Officer of MBNA. He had oversight
responsibilities for corporate affairs, law, government relations, real estate, facility
management, personnel, security, compensation and benefits, career development,
investor relations, media relations and planning. He was President of the MBNA
Education Foundation and managed all the banks community relations activities.
During his time with Bank of America, Mr. Weaver had responsibility for the banks
international credit card business and North American credit card business. He currently
serves as President of Virgin Money Cards and as an advisor to leading companies
such as VISA, Citigroup, TSYS, Magnises Card, West Monroe Partners, Allied
Properties, Broad Valley Broadband and Apollo Capital where he is a Board Member of
Avant CardApollos European credit card business. Before becoming part of Bank of
America's management team, he held positions in the banking industry at both Wells
Fargo Bank and Citigroup. Because of his extensive background in the world of
banking, Mr. Weaver was asked to teach a course in Business Ethics in the Honors
Program at the University of Delaware.
A graduate of Georgetown University, Mr. Weaver is a past member of the Georgetown
University Board of Directors and Board of Trustees and past Board Chair of
Vienna, Virginia 22182

877.9FEDBID (933-3243)
Info@FedBid.com
Copyright 2001-2014. All Rights Reserved.
TERMS OF USE
PRIVACY
Youtube
on
us
Plus
Google
on
Connect
LinkedIn
on
Connect
Twitter
on
us
facebook
8500 Leesburg Pike,
Follow
!"345
CONTACT
on
CAREERS
us
ABOUT
Find
LOGIN
Visit
MasterCard.
MARKETPLACES
HOW FEDBID WORKS
RESOURCES
EDUCATION
BUYER FAQS
WHITE PAPERS
COMMERCIAL
SELLER FAQS
VIDEOS
FEDERAL
WHAT'S ON THE MARKET
FEDBID FUEL
STATE & LOCAL
FEATURES
EVENTS
SELLERS
BUYER TESTIMONIALS
SELLER TESTIMONIALS
FEEDBACK
4/4
7/24/2014
Opportunities - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities
Buyers: Login | Register
Vendors: Login | Register
Accessibility
Opportunities
RETURN TO OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities List
Advanced Search
Archives
Search Tip: Use the Advanced Search Form for a w ide array of search fields. To view opportunities by agency, go to the Agencies section. A quick
search can be conducted using the fields below .
Keyw ord / Solicitation #: fedbid
TIPS
Search by Agency, Set-aside, State, and Type

1 - 20 of 1945
Opportunity
Posted Date: Last 30 Days
Search
Clear
Search by Classification, NAICS code, Recovery actions, and more
Sort By Posted On (Desc.)
Show ing 20
per page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 [98]
Agency/Office/Location
Type
/ Set-aside
Posted On
41--WASHABLE AIR FILTERS

RFQP0315NP140133A
41 -- Refrigeration, air-conditioning & air
circulating equipment
Departm ent of Justice

Bureau of Prisons
Acquisitions Branch
Aw ard / Total Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
39--Forklifts
W911SG-14-T-9313
39 -- Materials handling equipment
Departm ent of the Arm y

FedBid
FedBid.com -- for Department of Army
procurements only
Presolicitation
Jul 24, 2014
T--Clear One Device Installation

W911SD-14-T-0213
T -- Photographic, mapping, printing, &
publication services

FedBid
procurements only
Jul 24, 2014
66--Quality Calibration System

14-OSHA-CHI-CHI-0088
66 -- Instruments & laboratory equipment
Departm ent of Labor

Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management
Office of Procurement Services
Jul 24, 2014
66--OSHA CTC Pum p Kits

14-OSHA-CHI-CHI-0061
Departm ent of Labor

Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management
Office of Procurement Services
Aw ard
Jul 24, 2014
S--Janitorial Services for

Christiansted NHS and Salt River NHP
S40164688
S -- Utilities and housekeeping services
Departm ent of the Interior

National Park Service
NPS - All Offices
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation / Total

Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
V--Life Cycle Training 20-24 August

King of Prussia, PA
W91247-14-T-CL25
V -- Transportation, travel, & relocation
services

FedBid
procurements only
Jul 24, 2014
W--OPTION - WASHER AND DRYER

LEASE
N68836-14-T-0219
W -- Lease or Rental of equipment
Departm ent of the Navy

NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center
Jacksonville

Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
66--Neutron Generators (D-D and D-T)
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=list
1/2
7/24/2014
Opportunities - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

N65540-14-T-5105
Naval Sea Systems Command

NSWC Carderock DET Philadelphia
(Modified)
Jul 24, 2014
D--Install Underground
Com m unications cable
RFQPR0010492656-07
D -- Information technology services,
including telecommunications services

FedBid
procurements only
(Modified)
Jul 24, 2014
D--Install Underground
Com m unications cable
RFQPR0010492656-08
D -- Information technology services,
including telecommunications services

FedBid
procurements only
Jul 24, 2014
70--Toners/Printers
RFQ0620140019
70 -- General purpose information
technology equipment

Bureau of Prisons
Acquisitions Branch
Presolicitation (Modified) / Total Small

Business
Jul 24, 2014
70--Toners/Printers
RFQ0620140019-01

Bureau of Prisons
Acquisitions Branch

Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
70--OPTION - McAfee
hardw are/softw are support
W91RUS-14-T-0157

FedBid
procurements only
(Modified)
Jul 24, 2014
58--Video System (Integraged in RearView Mirror)

S40159020
58 -- Communication, detection, & coherent
radiation equipment

National Park Service
NPS - All Offices
Jul 24, 2014
70--UPS Repair Maintenance

W91RUS-14-T-0243

FedBid
procurements only
(Modified) / Total Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
76--Textbooks
0040156580
76 -- Books, maps & other publications

Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIA - DAPM
(Modified) / Total Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
37--Com m ercial Zero-Turn Mow er

Purchase - Golconda Job Corps
AG-05K3-S-14-0039
37 -- Agricultural machinery & equipment
Departm ent of Agriculture

Forest Service
R-6 Northw est Contracting Area, Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie NF
Jul 24, 2014
54--Custom , Free-Standing Portable

Loading Dock
MF-0012-3P
54 -- Prefabricated structures and
scaffolding

FedBid
procurements only

Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
J--N4446614RC233KC REFURBISHMENT
OF PURE WATER TRAILER
N6883614T0226
J -- Maintenance, repair & rebuilding of
equipment

NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center
Jacksonville

Small Business
Jul 24, 2014
1 - 20 of 1945
Show ing 20
per page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 [98]
For Help: Federal Service Desk Accessibility
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=list
2/2

W91rus14t0286 Gao Level Protest Against Fedbid Discrimination of Veteran Owned Small Business

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

W91rus14t0286 Gao Level Protest Against Fedbid Discrimination of Veteran Owned Small Business

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SENDINGFEDBIDTOTHEGAO

Discrimination On the Marketplace

71--FURNITURE - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

Buyers: Login | Register

Vendors: Login | Register

Solicitation Num ber: W91RUS14T0286

Interested Vendors List

Com plete View

Return To Opportunities List

Watch This Opportunity

Add Me To Interested Vendors

The APG - Huachuca Installation requires the following items, Purchase

71--FURNITURE - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

GRID W/HEAD REST ITEM# 56475 CHAIR AIRGRID W/HEADREST

71--FURNITURE - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

Return To Opportunities List

Watch This Opportunity

Add Me To Interested Vendors

For Help: Federal Service Desk Accessibility

Latvian Connection LLC

Dear Procurement Law Group:

The Contracting for this procurement is FEDBID.com clientservice@fedbid.com Point of Contact(s):

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

Per FAR 33.103 Protests to the agency

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

The GAO stated in Exhibit 10, regarding Reverse Auctions that:

GAO PRE - AWARD PROTEST

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

a gross mismanagement of a federal contract;

a gross waste of federal funds;

GAO PRE - AWARD PROTEST

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract (where abuse of authority is defined as an

a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or

A member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress;

The U.S. Government Accountability Office;

A court or grand jury; or

PRE-AWARD GAO PROTEST N3596A14RCCS017 and FEDBID 627729 - LATVIAN CONNECTION

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

19.201 General policy.

FACTUAL GROUNDS OF THE PROTEST

LATVIAN CONNECTION LLCs Proposal

GAO PRE - AWARD PROTEST

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

GAO PRE - AWARD PROTEST

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

The legal grounds that support this Pre-Award Protest are:

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

The Competition in Contracting Act states:

The U.S. ARMYs APG - Huachuca Installation is being Unreasonable

W91RUS14T0286 FEDBID, b-639078_01, n-144987

JULY 24, 2014

LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC LLC Has Been Prejudiced

GAO PRE - AWARD PROTEST