#GovConThoughts: Army Requests Feedback on Joint Venture Eligibility Under its MAPS IDIQ Vehicle
[My #govconthoughts series provides a quick take on recent developments in the government contracting space.]
The U.S. Army posted draft solicitation documents for its MAPS procurement and it looks like the agency is trying to figure out what to do with joint ventures (large and small).
Last week, the Army posted a host of documents on SAM.gov, including draft Sections L&M, for its highly anticipated Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services ("MAPS") IDIQ procurement. MAPS is a vehicle that combines and replaces the Army's Information Technology Enterprise Solutions – 3 Services ("ITES-3S") and Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services 11 ("RS3") IDIQ vehicles and appears to have a ceiling of around $50 Billion.
Dollars aside, this 10-year vehicle is a massive procurement and one that will garner significant attention and competition given that the agency intends on making only 100 awards (20 per domain). From what I've learned, that number is considerably less than the current number of ITES-3S and RS3 awards.
In any event, while I have not studied all of the posted documents, the Army's industry feedback request form caught my eye. There, the Army is considering restricting competition by excluding joint ventures ("JV") from bidding on the contract. The request appears to cover both large and small businesses, stating that "In order to promote competition, the Government is considering excluding Joint Ventures from proposing on the effort. Please identify any issues or concerns you have with this approach."
Given the value of the procurement – and its strategic importance – this request will likely garner significant feedback and pushback from both large and small businesses. Bidding as a JV not only is contemplated under the FAR but also is part of the fabric of the Small Business Act and the SBA's implementing regulations. If the Army decides to prohibit JVs from bidding, there likely will be several bid protests arguing that the terms of the solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition (among other arguments).
Ultimately, there could be just as many “yeas" as there are "nays" on this issue. After all, JVs have been a hot topic on large contract vehicles over the last couple years. So, will the Army's idea to prohibit JV offerors from bidding – under the guise of "promot[ing] competition" – survive and serve as a testbed for future solicitations, or will the agency reverse course? Lastly, with only 100 awards over five domains, there potentially could be fewer than 50 awardees on this $50 Billion vehicle. In that respect, Army's MAPS seems a lot like VA T4NG2 redux.
. . .
Comments