Jump to content

Rolling Admissions (On-ramps/Off-Ramps)


Recommended Posts

Dr. Carter's original Better Buying Power memo dated Sep 2010 made mention of the mandatory use of on-ramps/off-ramps for knowledge based service (Advisory & Assistance Services) contracts over three years long (including options). A quick Google search indicates that many agencies are using on-ramps/off-ramps as rolling admissions for all types of requirements, but there is very little information on the concepts used. In reviewing several different local clauses it appears, at face value, that agencies are looking to remove low-value contractors and replace them with seemingly better contractors. The Navy's Seaport contract seems to have the most public information available with an entire website dedicated to the process.

Other than informing prospective offerors of the government's intent to add contractors, for administrative convenience throughout the life of the contract, what is gained? It seems the government already has remedies to off-ramp contractors albeit at a cost whereas it appears that off-ramps are at no-cost to the government.

Any Wifcon posters or viewers have any information or comments related to rolling admissions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

What's is gained by including an on-ramp/off-ramp clause in a MATOC?

The on-ramp/off-ramp idea is associated with multiple-award IDIQ (task order) contracts (MATOCs) and was a response to several issues.

The contracts were being awarded with several extension options or with ever longer ordering periods (as long as 10 years) without options, which had the effect of locking some firms out of the market for lengthy periods of time. It was feared that this "lock out" effect would have potentially long-term negative consequences for some industries and markets.

There was also concern that contractor pools would become competitively stagnant in the course of lengthy contracts, through competitive dominance by one or a few firms, which could affect the quality of services received.

Adding new firms to an existing contractor pool might arguably breach an implied promise of exclusive membership to contractors in the original pool. Recompeting an entire contract is not a practical or economical way to refresh the pool.

Even though the Government has no further obligation to buy once a minimum has been ordered, it continues to have an obligation to provide all contractors in the pool a "fair opportunity" to be considered for orders. This made problematical the elimination of marginal ("dead weight") contractors from further consideration without the risk of litigation. T for D and T for C are not practical or economical solutions to the "dead weight" problem, and singling out a firm for refusal to exercise its extension option (if the contract includes them) might prompt limitation.

A rolling admission ("on ramp") term in a contract puts contractors on notice that the Government might add new contractors to the pool and that there is no promise, express or implied, of exclusivity.

An "off ramp" term puts firms on notice that the Government might eliminate them from further consideration during the ordering period after the minimum obligation has been satisfied or that it might not exercise their ordering period extension options.

The gain is better mutual understanding and a more certain meeting of the minds. The clause presumably puts to rest any issues about the Government's intentions and rights in those regards and thus reduces the risk of litigation. Of course, the exact nature of the Government's rights and how the clause works depends on how it's written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Vern, you made sense of what I was attempting to get at. Mitigating an arguable breach of an implied promise of exclusive membership was something unnamed in my subconscious. In my own words, the multiple award contractors are put on notice about the Government's intention, which manages the arguable breach and facilitates on-ramps/off-ramps however the agency describes.

Is it correct to assume that on-ramps are not a streamlined process? By that, I mean do on-ramps follow all of the rules of an acquisition that a new requirement/recompete would (dollar-value, etc.)?

Example - $500M (Max) MATOC is awarded with a five year ordering period. After the first year $400M of the $500M max is remaining: Would an on-ramp at this point be conducted as a $400M source selection with all the rules thereof or can/have agencies simplify the on-ramp process? After typing that it dawned on me that specific agency rules are what is going to determine a lot of the answer.

It doesn't seem overly complex as-is but, conducting a $400M source selection around here isn't the fastest or cheapest thing to do if all normal rules apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
Is it correct to assume that on-ramps are not a streamlined process? By that, I mean do on-ramps follow all of the rules of an acquisition that a new requirement/recompete would (dollar-value, etc.)?

I assume so. A contract award is a contract award. It should be subject to the same rules that apply to all similar acquisitions. The current (2014) SeaPort "rolling admissions" solicitation looks like a standard RFP. But I don't know what all agencies actually do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...