Bridge contract highlights procurement system dysfunction

A contract extension is really the only answer when one contract is ending before the follow-on is in place. Doing so makes sense, but it doesn’t feel right.

The latest case in point is a move by the General Services Administration to extend a task order won by Dynetics in 2017 for at least one more year to support the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command in Huntsville, Alabama.

A Leidos subsidiary, Dynetics has received each annual option through September 2022. Dynetics has already had one six-month extension through March 5, 2023. The original task order was worth $159.3 million. Dynetics won the work through the OASIS professional services vehicle.

Now GSA is asking for another six months and a six-month option that would allow Dynetics to continue supporting its customer through March 2024.

GSA's reason for the extension is quite simple – the new OASIS+ recompete vehicle isn’t ready yet. The agency expects a final solicitation to go out by the end of March. As the Sam.gov filing on the Dynetics extension states, there are risks of further delays if protests are filed after awards are made.

“A bridge is necessary for continued performance with no break in service on this mission-critical effort due to the approaching gap between this task order’s expiration and award of the follow-on effort, alongside the anticipated issues associated with the potential for one or more protests,” GSA writes.

Dynetics’ Army customer in Huntsville doesn’t have the people needed to provide the technical skills if the task order comes to an end. A bridge task order assures that the research-and-development services by Dynetics can continue. The work include technology development, maintenance of test articles, test apparatuses, test facilities and prototype fabrication.

Running another competition through the existing OASIS contract would take 120 days on average, GSA said. There would another 30-to-60 days to transition to a new contractor. Because of those timeframes, GSA believes there just isn’t enough time to do that for a one-year extension.

GSA's filing says that even under a most accelerated procurement process, there would still be a gap in services for the command and that isn't acceptable,

Makes total sense to me. The justification documents explain the situation and the extension seems like the way to go.

But put aside the contract, the value and everything else. This justification is another example of dysfunction in the procurement system. It doesn't make sense that a contract can end without another one being in place to continue the work.

This justification, and actually most justifications, don’t raise an eyebrow because they are so commonplace. We're so used to the dysfunction that we don’t notice it.

In this case there was an easy fix at hand, but that still doesn’t mean it’s the right way to run a government.