Make Dr Roper Nervous

In Dr Roper’s recent talks in podcast and Worldwide Summit, he said no one has suggested something that has made him nervous yet. Well I think I’ve got one: How about a J&A that is time bound and not dollar bound?

If I have a good reason for limiting competition, it must go to this contractor for whatever reason, lets say National Security.

Requirements are hard to define, and so is budget, I just know I need this thing. Why then am I asked to cap the J&A? Let’s say I write it for $50 mil, it has to go to PEO, but then if requirements grow and its now going to cost $90 mil, I have to write a “Follow-On” to have that ECP (or TRN for T&M) J&A approved again. Why can’t I say, “you know what, its gotta go to this contractor, cant be competed until 2022.” At that time I’ll re-evaluate and write another J&A or change strategy if need be. But let the project cost what its going to cost. I’ll get a Delta ASP, but why another J&A?

Feeling nervous yet?

2 Likes

You could simply state in the J/A that further approval is not warranted as long as the scope of the requirement does not change. However, It is hard to imagine how $50 goes to $90M without a scope change. But hey, maybe you just increase quantities of the same thing that are under sole source. It would also be dependent on the cited justification as you say. If National Security will be a concern until 2022 by competing it then you could do a J&A stating such but it would still be bound to the product/svs tech scope. So if you have to sole source to NG until 2022 for a product that you don’t want to compete but then add $40M in scope with say 50% in COTS items that could be procured elsewhere and provided then you would probably have to amend the J/A to explain why it is more efficient/less risky to put that scope onto NG vs. making it Govt provided material etc.