Shutterstock_1100823161.jpg

Unusual and Compelling Urgency Exception to Full and Open Competition Requirements

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires full and open competition in federal procurement. However, under certain circumstances, exceptions to full and open competition may apply, and the procuring agency may conduct the procurement on a sole-source basis or by otherwise limiting competition. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302 provides seven limited exceptions to full and open competition. Among those exceptions, FAR 6.302-2 permits using other than full and open competition in procurements with unusual and compelling urgency. As one might expect, the exception is construed narrowly, permitting the agency’s use of other than full and open competition only in situations when the government would be seriously injured unless it limits its sources. Even when foregoing full and open competition by citing an unusual and compelling urgency, the procuring agency must still request offers from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances. Additionally, when making contract awards under this authority, agencies must support their decision with justifications and approvals (J&As). In situations where the preparation of a J&A before the award would cause an undue delay to the acquisition, agencies may provide the J&As after the contract award.

For any contract exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold that is awarded or modified using this exception, the total performance period may not exceed the time necessary to meet the unusual and compelling requirements of the work to be performed. Stated another way, such contracts may not be awarded for longer than the period required for the agency to award a new contract using competitive procedures. Additionally, the total period of performance may not exceed one year unless the head of the procuring agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply. In such cases, the agency’s determination of exceptional circumstances is in addition to the justification provided in the J&A and must be documented in the contract file. All subsequent modifications extending the performance period beyond one year using the same unusual and compelling urgency authority require a separate determination. In addition to the limitations on the period of performance, the quantity of products or services obtained under this authority must also be limited to the amounts strictly necessary to meet agency requirements until such time when an award can be made pursuant to full and open competition.

The urgent and compelling urgency exception may be used when there is insufficient time to conduct a full and open competition to meet critical requirements. In B-261431, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the sole source award to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for a limited quantity of antennas for the F-15 aircraft was reasonable when there was a critical inventory shortage, and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) did not have a technical data package available to permit full and open competition. In that case, the DLA ordered 200 antennas on an urgent basis to replenish the critically low inventory of the antennas. The GAO noted that the procuring agency had the authority to limit the procurement to the OEM because it reasonably believed it was the only firm that could perform properly within the available time. In making its determination, the GAO pointed to the record, which demonstrated that the OEM was the only approved source that could qualify for the award. The GAO accepted the need to avoid delay in replenishing the inventory for a critical item as an appropriate basis for making an urgent and compelling non-competitive award and dismissed the protest.

The unusual and compelling urgency exception to the full and open requirements of CICA is applicable when a delay in the contract award would result in serious injury to the government. It is worth noting that the serious injury requirement FAR 6.302-2(b)(2) includes potentially serious financial injuries that the government may suffer if a full and open competition is conducted. However, contractors should be mindful that the unusual and compelling urgency exception is narrowly construed, and the procuring agency may not claim urgency on account of its lack of advanced planning. Similarly, the potential expiration of procurement funds at the end of a fiscal year is not a proper justification for invoking the urgency exception. Furthermore, the FAR places specific procedural limitations on using the urgency exception, including requiring procuring agencies to obtain offers from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances. The unusual and compelling urgency exception includes a necessary limitation that requires agencies to take reasonable steps to accurately determine and describe their needs. Contractors may challenge the agencies’ failure to comply with this requirement as a violation of CICA’s mandate for full and open competition.

This Federal Procurement Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

FI2_BP_shutterstock_116561050.jpg

Full and open competition is a fundamental tenet of the U.S. Federal Procurement system. The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984 guarantees full and open competition to contractors competing for federal government contracts. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 6 and its various subparts implement CICA. Notably, FAR subpart 6.2 provides for full and open competition after set-asides are implemented to narrow sources. Meanwhile, FAR Subpart 6.3 provides seven limited exceptions to full and open competition listed in subsections 6.302–1 through 6.302–7. Issues arising from the government’s application of exceptions to full and open competition listed in FAR 6.3 form the basis for bid protests. When avoiding full and open competition by implicating one of the seven narrow exceptions provided in FAR 6.302, contracting officers (COs) and government officials must meet specifically enumerated procedural requirements. For instance, when invoking an exception listed in FAR 6.302, agencies must execute a Justification and Approval (J&A) or Determination and Findings (D&F) document setting forth the basis for the procurement not being subject to full and open competition. Contractors looking to file a pre-award protest due to a lack of full and open competition may challenge the agency’s rationale in the J&A and D&F documents as legally insufficient.

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-7.jpg

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) governs competition in federal contracting and is designed to guarantee full and open competition amongst competing offerors. Although the federal government generally prefers full and open competition, certain contracts are awarded on a sole-source basis without going through the standard competitive process. Such sole-source contracts may be of particular interest to specialized or small business contractors. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides seven limited exceptions to full and open competition listed in FAR subsections 6.302-1 through 6.302-7. Even if one of these exceptions is applicable, the FAR requires contracting officers to solicit offers from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances.

The sole-source exception to full and open competition is provided in FAR 6.302-1 and applies in situations where only one responsible source exists to satisfy agency requirements. Sole-source decisions must be supported with written justifications and approvals. Notably, the government may not issue sole-source awards due to a lack of advance planning or concerns relating to the expiration of appropriated funds. Pursuant to FAR 5.201, contracting officers are also required to publish notifications of sole-source solicitations, giving prospective contractors interested in such procurements an opportunity to respond. FAR 6.302-1 outlines three specific scenarios in which contracting officers are permitted to conduct procurements on a sole-source basis.

more
TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-10.jpg

Acquisition planning on U.S. federal contracts requires the contracting activity to coordinate and integrate the efforts of all personnel responsible for the acquisition via a comprehensive plan that fulfills the government’s requirements in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984, implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6, mandates full and open competition in federal procurement. Consequently, while there are limited exceptions enumerated in FAR § 6.3, federal agencies must generally use competitive procedures in procuring products and services. Furthermore, federal agencies are expressly prohibited from entering contracts for property or services by utilizing non-competitive procedures when they have failed to properly plan the procurement in advance.

Contractors looking to challenge the Government’s use of non-competitive procedures in such improperly planned procurements must be prepared to demonstrate that the agency’s decision was unreasonable under the particular circumstances of that procurement. In 2014, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency under the Department of Interior (DOI), was involved in a procurement contract for technology services. The procurement at issue was a Buy Indian Set-Aside conducted under the Buy Indian Act of 1910, and the eventual contract was awarded to an eligible non-incumbent contractor. However, a week before the conclusion of the predecessor contract, the incumbent contractor timely protested the award at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In response, the BIA informed the GAO that it intended to take corrective action and requested that the GAO dismiss the incumbent’s protest.

more
Shutterstock_2290060953-2.jpg

Protests alleging the government’s violation of the Competition in Contracting Act’s (CICA) full and open competition mandate may be styled in various forms, with allegations of improper competition restrictions varying depending on the specific circumstances of the procurement. Despite this, to be successful, the protestor’s allegations must always be factually and legally sufficient. Protestors may face difficulties providing a sound factual or legal basis for their protests when challenging the classified status of a procurement, especially when they do not have access to the solicitation. Bid protest adjudicative forums, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), will typically dismiss protests lacking such support by citing speculation, factual inaccuracies, or flawed legal assumptions. Notably, when rejecting such protests, the GAO does not require the government to submit an agency report, further disincentivizing protestors from filing such protests.

In B-422653, a decision issued on August 6, 2024, the GAO dismissed such a bid protest for failing to state a valid legal or factual basis. The protest challenged the “classified” status of a request for proposal (RFP) issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the procurement of intelligence and counterintelligence services. The protestor, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), essentially asserted that the DOE’s issuance of a classified RFP for the subject procurement made it unduly restrictive of competition. The protestor discovered the existence of the classified solicitation when it came across the name of its RFP on a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) website. Since the RFP was only available by accessing the NRO’s Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System (JWICS), the protestor emailed the NRO to request an unclassified version of the RFP. Since JWICS is a secure intranet system that hosts classified information, accessing JWICS requires a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF), which the protestor did not possess. When the agency refused to provide the sanitized version of the RFP, the protestor filed a protest with the GAO, alleging a lack of full and open competition in violation of CICA.

more

Unusual and Compelling Urgency Exception to Full and Open Competition Requirements

TILLIT LAW Federal Procurement Insights