When congressional legislation was passed last May, 2008 supporting Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act, it was done so to ensure that both government and industry benefited from enhanced competition. This certainly will require a significant period of time to properly assess the cost benefits, but along the way it makes for some interesting discussion. In principal, the basic components of this provision are listed below.
The text listed below was originally authored by Marko W. Kipa, of Sheppard Mullin, LLP. Marko can be reached at 202-772-5302 or mkipa@sheppardmullin.com. The entire article was originally posted in Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at governmentcontractslawblog.com. For further information concerning Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Practice, contact either of the Practice Group Leaders, Bryan Daly in Los Angeles at (213) 617-5466 or Anne Perry in Washington, D.C. at (202) 218-6875.
- Protests Authorized In Connection With TOs and DOs Valued Over $10 Million
The interim rules allow for the filing of a protest in connection with the award of a Multiple Award contract task or delivery order valued in excess of $10 million. The interim rules do not circumscribe the universe of grounds for protest and, thus, protesters would not only be able to challenge agency action based on the enhanced competition requirements (discussed below), but also on the vast variety of protest grounds commonly associated with FAR Part 15 procurements. GAO has been granted exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these protests. Congress was not convinced apparently that these changes would cure the ailments afflicting IDIQ contracts or that they had struck the proper balance between competing and divergent interests in fashioning its grant of bid protest jurisdiction because the new law contains a sunset provision that extinguishes a contractor’s ability to file protests in connection with task or delivery orders valued at over $10 million in three years (i.e., May 27, 2011). Congress adopted the three year test period to allow time to consider the implementation and impact of the new law. See House Conference Report 110-477.
- Enhanced Competition Requirements For TOs and DOs Valued in Excess of $5 Million
The interim rules also impose specific procedures that an agency must implement to satisfy its obligation to provide contractors under a Multiple Award contract with a fair opportunity to compete. Specifically, with respect to task and delivery orders valued at over $5 million, an agency must provide (a) notice to contract holders of the proposed task or delivery order that includes a clear statement of requirements; (b) a reasonable proposal response period; (c) the significant evaluation factors and subfactors as well as their relative importance; (d) where award is made on a best value basis, a written statement documenting the basis for award; and (e) an opportunity for a post-award debriefing.
- Limitations On Single Award Task Or Delivery Order Contracts
The interim rules prohibit single award task or delivery order contracts valued at over $100 million (including options) unless the head of the agency authorizes the award. The agency head may only do so upon a determination in writing that: (a) the expected task or delivery orders are so integrally related that only a single contractor can perform the work; (b) the contract provides only for firm-fixed price task or delivery orders; (c) only one source is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price; or (d) exceptional circumstances justify the public’s interest in awarding the contract to a single source. In the event the agency head relies on the “public interest” exception, Congress must be notified within 30 days. As evident, this prohibition against single award contracts valued in excess of $100 million is designed to encourage the use of Multiple Award contracts and to foster further competition at the task and delivery order level.
The complete article written by Marko that discusses these provisions in greater detail is listed on the Government Contracts Blog, hosted by Sheppard Mullin. Click here to read the entire entry.
Summary discussion: In the current economic recession our country is faced with, coupled with a mounting national debt, there is little argument that could dispel the inherent benefit of making multiple awards, particularly as it relates to the limitations on single award task or delivery order contracts over $100M. This is generally always going to be truthful if the services provided are “soft services”, and not directly impacting the war-fighter in theatre. Specifically the benefits of making these multiple awards are far reaching, and have a derived impact on:
- The government client(s):This goes without saying that should the government evaluation find that there is more than one qualified offeror, then the client receives the “best of breed” that is derived from choosing from each of the prime contractors and their respective teammates. In short no one company, large or small, has a monopoly on good people or best practices. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. There a hundreds of great companies that make up the defense sector, all of which want to help their clients, and all of which provide great services and extremely talented personnel.
- The taxpayer-In a time of a significant recession, multiple government programs being introduced to stimulate the economy, and a mounting national debt, the taxpayer is the one who truly should benefit from section 843. This legislation when adhered to, promotes competitive pricing between contract awardees, and incentivizes those companies who continually provide ways of doing business faster, better, and cheaper. If only one contract is awarded, this results in the competitive incentive being eliminated, and taxpayer savings abandoned when in fact we are in a time in our country’s history when we need it most of all.
- Industry-As I stated in number 1 above, industry stands to gain by having the government make multiple awards as well. Because of the depth of resources and capabilities spread throughout those companies who make up the defense sector, should the government take an earnest stance on implementation of section 843, it would open up competition amongst these very same defense firms, and increase percentage distribution across multiple firms, while also creating a more comprehensive set of solutions for the government to choose from.
In the interest of helping our military clients, supporting growth within industry, and creating a value proposition for the taxpayer, let’s hope the government makes good use of section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Filed under: McGuirk Consulting, RFP, Winning Recompete Business, bidding government contracts, capture management, capturing contracts, federal business development objectives, federal contracting, government contracts, winning government contracts | Leave a Comment »


Yes it’s true that it takes a long time to win a large program. In fact it sometimes takes equally as long a time to win a smaller program. In the process, your team is constantly looking for a competitive edge. Searching for that one chink in the armour that allows you to exploit the competitor’s weakness. The marketing advantage, technical advantage, manager whom they desire, or price they can’t ignore.
So your behind in your growth goals and need to find the right opportunity to pursue? Your getting pressured to identify and qualify the next target so the pipeline seems more realistic? Here are some simple tips to ensure you select the right one.
It’s been quite a while since my last blog entry. Hence the title of this post. 
