This acquisition is suited to a logical follow-on in accordance with [FAR sect.] 8.405-6(b)(2) as the new work is for the continued development or production of a major system, USAccess, and the original order was awarded competitively and placed in accordance with applicable FSS ordering procedures. Award to another source is likely to result in disruption of GSA customer agencies' Logical/Physical access deployments, substantial duplication of costs to the Government not expected to be recovered through competition, and unacceptable delays in the transition of this service. Any new end-to-end solution would require a similar process of development and deployment that would unavoidably increase cost. The MSO has chosen to minimize its risk by keeping the core service intact and migrating the system in an orderly way, in accordance with the developing IT Strategic Plan.

[HPES] developed and deployed the USAccess system and has operated it for the past 3 years. The present system took more than a year to develop and two more to deploy. The incumbent contractor is the most familiar with the customer population, operational considerations, and technical challenges. The primary reason for pursuing this strategy is to reduce risk. The largest risk identified by the MSO is that the 500,000 current cardholders will not have working cards upon the close of the current contract. Over 90 customer agencies, commissions, and boards who are issuing PIV [personal identity verification] cards for logical and physical access are in varying stages of completion, ranging from less than 5% to over 90% of government and contract employees having been issued and activated cards. Changing contractors when at least the majority of customer agency employees have either not been badged or are in the process of being badged would create substantial disruptions of their missions.

AR, exh. 24, Justification para. IV.b.2. The justification went on to explain that GSA's market research had shown that even using government furnished facilities or equipment would still require a different contractor to integrate its own offering with the existing data and customer base, and thereby greatly increase the risk to the MSO and its customers. Id. para. VI. Using a logical follow-on to continue the core services while separating and competing the external services, along with developing a longer-term strategy for using a fully-competed contract or contracts, represented the highest likelihood of success with the lowest program risk. This transition strategy would enable GSA to achieve a more flexible and competition-friendly HSPD-12 service. Id.

XTec argues that no evidence supports GSA's assertion that a transition to a new contractor would entail substantial duplication of costs or new development expenses. The protester contends that it already has a system ready to deliver; the protester acknowledges that certain equipment might need new software patches to interface with XTec's solution, or replacements, but contends that these would be minor in scope and less expensive than recreating the entire infrastructure. XTec Comments, Sept. 23, 2011, at 9-11.

That XTec has a system to provide these services is not in dispute. Instead, the agency's concern is that any other vendor's system would have to be integrated into the system already provided by HPES, and that this integration process would result in disruption, transition delays, duplication of costs, and new costs.

The contracting officer explains that GSA did not acquire a system under the prior task order, but used the services HPES offered. CO's Declaration para. 14. The core service is built around a proprietary set of technologies that combine databases and middleware to provide a managed service for the MSO to provide its customer agencies and, apart from a few items, GSA does not own any of the hardware. Id. Not only is a major data migration involved, but also a substantial hardware infrastructure, multiple interfaces, and countless service considerations. Id. para. 15. The hardware, software, and communications infrastructure that supports the solution, as well as an infrastructure upgrade, was procured and implemented by HPES, with the costs recovered through the service-based pricing. Id. para. 18.

The contracting officer also states that more than 200 HPES-procured and implemented shared fixed credentialing center configurations are integrated into the application and infrastructure, and many of these would have to be replaced if an alternate solution were implemented. Id. para. 19. As HPES notes, this hardware replacement would likely result in a duplication of costs. HPES Comments, Sept. 23, 2011, at 18. In addition, the contracting officer states that most customers have slightly different requirements for interface with their internal systems, each of which required HPES to develop and deploy a custom interface, so any contractor attempting to provide the core services would have to provide not only the basic hardware necessary for the service but also the interfaces to each customer's computer systems. CO's Declaration para. 15. This would, as HPES asserts, likely involve a significant investment of time--and thus transition delay and potential disruption--and money. HPES Comments at 18-19.

XTec's assertions that it could provide a seamless transition, notwithstanding these issues, is not sufficient to find GSA's justification, which is in substance based on concerns about economy and efficiency, unreasonable.

The contracting officer also explains that GSA and its customers have invested significantly into customer-directed enhancements to HPES's proprietary application, totaling $6,973,624 in enhancements through 366 chargeable change requests, which required 57,127 hours of customization work. She states that all of this work and investment would have to be replicated and duplicated if an alternate solution were implemented. CO's Declaration paras. 21, 22.

XTec asserts that it is "far from clear" how much of this would need to be duplicated, speculating that, for example, some change orders might have installed functionality that XTec's solution already possesses. XTec Comments, Sept. 23, 2011, at 11. However, this speculation does not provide a basis to find that the agency's concern about duplication of costs and disruption—in other words, economy and efficiency—was unreasonable.

XTec challenges the justification's statement that there was a risk that the 500,000 current cardholders would not have working cards upon the close of the initial task order, arguing that the cards are interoperable regardless of the system used to issue them. XTec also disputes the agency's characterization of the progress made toward card issuance. Id. at 7-9

As HPES notes, however, while the cards once produced and activated may be interoperable, the systems that produce, manage, and maintain the cards are not. That is the reason XTec would have to duplicate the software customization efforts already taken by HPES. HPES Comments, Sept. 23, 2011, at 15-17. The contracting officer explains that each of GSA's customers was on-boarded using agency-specific configuration data. She states that agency cards cannot be printed and subsequently activated without this unique configuration data and would have to be re-initialized if an alternate solution were implemented. CO's Declaration para. 20. While XTec disagrees, here, too, it has not shown the agency's concerns are not valid.

In sum, we find that the agency's limited source justification to extend the HPES task order based was reasonable and was made in the interest of economy and efficiency, as required by the now-applicable FAR provision.  (XTec, Inc., B-405505, November 8, 2011)  (pdf)

The protester argues that the agency improperly issued the short-term order to MANCON on a sole-source basis. SIM contends in this connection that MANCON is not the only firm capable of furnishing the needed services.

The 3-month task order, which has a value of $71,920, was placed against MANCON's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 8.405-6 exempts orders placed under Federal Supply Schedules from the competition requirements of FAR Part 6, but requires that an ordering activity "justify its action when restricting consideration of . . . schedule contractors to fewer than required in 8.405-1 or 8.405-2." FAR sect. 8.405-6(a)(1). Circumstances justifying such a restriction include where an urgent and compelling need exists and following the ordering procedures would result in unacceptable delays. FAR sect. 8.405-6(b)(3). Where an ordering activity restricts competition on the basis of urgent and compelling need, the contracting officer is required to document the circumstances in writing. FAR sect. 8.405-6(c), (f).

Here, the contracting officer determined that the maintenance services were urgently required, and that MANCON, which had been providing the services for the preceding 2 months, had the required personnel in place. The contracting officer noted that conducting a competition for the interim services would require the Marine Corps to prepare and publish an RFQ, wait a reasonable time for vendors to respond, and evaluate the responses, which would take a period of weeks. Agency Report, Tab 9, Limited Sources Justification, at 1. According to the contracting officer, "the only reasonable solution to avoid an interruption in the services [was] to award a short-term (90 days) bridge contract to the current incumbent, MANCON, without competition, until a properly competed contract [could] be awarded." Id.

The protester disputes the agency's finding, arguing that issuance of a task order to MANCON was not the only means by which the agency could have avoided an interruption in services. SIM contends that it too could have begun performance immediately. The protester points out in this connection that it was performing the services prior to issuance of the now-terminated task order to MANCON, and that all of the MANCON employees were previously SIM employees.

We agree with the protester that the record does not demonstrate that MANCON is the only firm capable of performing the services without interruption; we nonetheless think that issuance of the order to MANCON was unobjectionable given the agency's findings that the services were needed immediately and that conducting a competition for them would take a period of weeks. As noted above, FAR sect. 8.405-6(b)(3) specifically authorizes restricting competition where, as here, an urgent and compelling need exists and following the FSS ordering procedures would result in unacceptable delays. To the extent that the protester is disputing the agency's judgment as to the time period required to conduct a competition for the interim services, a protester's mere disagreement does not show that the agency's judgment was unreasonable. Richard Bowers & Co., B‑400276, Sept. 12, 2008, 2008 CPD para. 171 at 2. Further, to the extent that SIM is arguing that it, not MANCON, should have been considered the incumbent contractor given that the task order issued to MANCON was terminated--and that, as the incumbent, it should have received the sole-source order for interim services--even assuming that the agency might reasonably have issued an order for the interim services to the protester, this does not demonstrate that it was unreasonable for it to issue an order to MANCON instead.

SIM also argues that the urgency here was the result of a lack of advance planning on the part of agency officials in that there would have been no need for the agency to terminate the task order issued under the RFQ and resolicit the requirement--and thus no need for the 3-month order for services during the interim period while the resolicitation is conducted‑-had the agency engaged in adequate planning prior to issuing the RFQ. We are not persuaded by the protester's argument; we do not consider an immediate need for services that arises as a result of an agency's implementation of corrective action in response to a protest to be the result of a lack of advance planning. See Chapman Law Firm Co., LPA, B-296847, Sept. 28, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 175 at 3; Computers Universal, Inc., B-296536, Aug. 18, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 160 at 3.

Finally, the protester points out that the limited sources justification document was not executed until June 7, 2010, approximately a week after it filed its protest with our Office (and more than 2 weeks after the bridge task order was issued to MANCON). FAR sect. 8.405-6 requires that the agency document in writing the basis for its decision to limit competition, but it does not require that the justification be executed prior to award. Moreover, where circumstances sufficient to support a justification are present, the lack of a contemporaneous written justification is not a sufficient reason for sustaining a protest. See General Elec. Med. Sys., B-231342, Aug. 26, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 185 at 3.  (Systems Integration & Management, Inc., B-402785.2, August 10, 2010)  (pdf)

While the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(c)(1) (2000), which limits obtaining goods or services noncompetitively unless supported by a written justification, does not apply to orders placed against FSS contracts, Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc., B-271222 et al., June 27, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 290 at 3 n.1, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 8.405-6 provides that sole-source orders from FSS contracts be supported by sole-source justifications that contain much of the same information required to be contained in justifications for sole-source contracts subject to CICA. Based on the record here, in particular the very limited duration of the contract extension, we think the agency has established a reasonable basis for this latest noncompetitive extension of abcISP’s purchase order under its FSS contract until CUI’s currently pending protest of the competitive procurement is resolved and award made under the protested solicitation. CUI has not shown that it is practicable for the agency to obtain a different contractor for these bridge contract services for this limited period of time. Unlike the situation in VSE Corp.; Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B‑290452.3 et al., May 23, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 103 (cited by the protester), where the agency noncompetitively extended a contract that had been noncompetitively awarded 4 years earlier for another 18 months with no justification and approval for this action and the extension was result of a lack of advanced procurement planning, the protested extension here is of a purchase order under the FSS to which the CICA requirements (applied in the VSE case) do not apply, and, in any case, the extension was not the result of a lack of advanced procurement planning, but was caused by a series of protests, and the agency has supported this latest extension with an approved justification. (Computers Universal, Inc., B-296536, August 18, 2005) (pdf)