'.-jgy?*"" '•»"«-•.-'-• ~-«*:-*r'*••-.: .%^,-.,>.-i ••<-"•---^ii W¥»*R*'p:-;
  ^^p;SS^;i:'^:fitf ^v'Sif


      -"	'	.A^^.«' ,,-,.„- -|_ - ., wji.gf.-l,,,-.r*.?$^33sBi&


 United States -
 Environmental Protection
' Agency
 Competition Advocacy
 Compiled by the

 Office Of
 Administration And
 Resources Management

 Office Of
 Acquisition Management

 June 1993



 Executive Summary	i

 Introduction	„	3

 EPA Organization	3

 Competition Results Since The
 Enactment Of CICA	4

 Promoting Competition	5

 Dollar Goals And Accomplishments
 For FY 91 	7

 Justifications For Other Than
 Full And Open Competition  	.8

 Functional Reviews  	8

 Specific Areas In Which Competition
 Has Been Enhanced	10

 Plans For Increasing Competition
 In FY 93  	18

 (FY 92 Competition Statistics) 	20


 Executive  Summary

 FY 92 Accomplishments

 The Agency established specific Fiscal Year
 (FY) 92 competition goals for all major
 programs. These goals were met by all except
 two programs. These two programs came
 within 3% of meeting their goals.  The primary
 reasons why these programs did not attain the
 high goals set for FY 92 were the  realignment
 of projects within the overall programs and the
 establishment of the long term contracting
 strategy.  Overall, EPA obligated 96 percent of
 its contract dollars on a competitive basis
 during FY 92 which equalled the percentage
 obligated competitively in FY 90 and FY 91.
 The EPA expended approximately 1.3 billion
 dollars during FY 92 through the  acquisition
    EPA  obligated 98 percent of its contract
 dollars for contracts in excess of $25,000
 through full and open competition. Of the
 small purchase dollars (actions of $25,000 or
 less), 74 percent were obligated competitively.

 Promoting Competition

 Acquisition and program personnel at all levels
 continued to challenge barriers to  competition
 by utilizing innovative methods of competing
 the Agency's requirements and breaking apart
 requirements to allow industry to be more
 receptive to EPA's competitive solicitations.
 The incumbent contractor advantage  has been
 reduced by exclusion of sources in certain
 situations and will be further emphasized in

 Functional Reviews

The Agency Competition Advocate (ACA)
performed functional reviews at the Agency's
three major contract activities and contract
representatives reviewed two small purchase
activities. Justifications for Other than Full and
Open  Competition (JOFOC), amount of
competition obtained for prime contract and
subcontract awards, documentation, and
awards under the 8(a) program were again

found to meet the requirements of the
Competition in Contracting Act.

Specific Program

The Agency has continued to enhance
competition through the use of innovative
procurement techniques. Contract personnel
have continually emphasized minimizing the
incumbent advantage and breaking out
statements of work if competition is to be
enhanced. When only one proposal is
received, often the period  of performance is
reduced for the current award and
resolicitation of the requirement is started to
obtain better competition.  Long term
contracting strategies have been utilized in the
programs. Requests for industry comments on
proposed requirements have been utilized
when time permits. Preproposal conferences
are held to communicate to industry EPA's
serious intentions for competition.

FY 93 Plans

EPA acquisition personnel and the ACA will
continue to be involved early in the acquisition
cycle. Early planning is essential to increasing
and enhancing competition. Contract personnel
will again emphasize clear statements of work
and unbiased evaluation criteria. Contracting
Officers will analyze program contracting
needs on a total program contracting strategy
basis rather than on a contract by  contract
basis.  The ACA and contract personnel  will
continue functional reviews. The ACA will
monitor expenditure of program funds to
ensure that FY 93 competitive goals  are met.
Justifications for Other than Full and Open
Competition and Acquisition Plans will
continue to be critically reviewed prior to
approval with the goal of  obtaining better  ___
competitions and reducing the incumbent  ~~
advantage in follow-on acquisitions.


 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 continues to be at the forefront of efforts to
 increase competition in Government
 contracting. The EPA has always emphasized
 competition in the acquisition of its
 requirements, resulting in impressive savings
 of taxpayer dollars and broadening the base of
 contractors with which the Agency contracts.
 The EPA expended a total of approximately 1.3
 billion dollars for large and small purchases
 though the acquisition process during FY 92.
 This pamphlet discusses FY 92 competition
 results, the role of the Competition Advocate,
 and actions underway to further increase
 competition and strengthen the industrial base.

 EPA Organization

 In December 1984, in accordance with the
 Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, the
 Director of the Procurement and Contracts
 Management Division appointed an Agency
 Competition Advocate (ACA)  to promote full
 and open competition in the award of
 contracts. To aid the ACA, an  associate
 competition advocate is located at each major
 contract activity and a competition coordinator
 represents each major EPA  program. It is
 largely through adoption of this organizational
 structure that EPA was  again able to award 96
 percent of its total contract  dollars available for
 competition (including small purchases)
 through the competition process during FY 92.
 The ACA's primary responsibilities are to:

 • Develop, direct and maintain the competition
 program to ensure that competition initiatives
are incorporated and implemented at all levels.

 • Assure that oversight  mechanisms are
established to provide visibility on any
problems or obstacles in obtaining competition.

 • Establish Agency competition goals on
specific  programs and monitor progress
towards those goals on a monthly basis. In

furtherance of these goals, maintain active
liaison with competition coordinators and
associate competition advocates.

• Ensure that competition is planned early in
the acquisition process to minimize factors
inhibiting full and open  competition. Consider
all reasonable competitive alternatives.
Promote market research to identify
competition potential in  support of acquisition
strategies before the procurement decision is
irrevocably made. Ensure that individual
acquisition plans are in concert with CICA and
maximize competition.

• Review and approve/disapprove
Justifications for Other than Full and Open
Competition for proposed prime contracts
exceeding $100,000 and Determinations and
Findings for exclusion of certain sources.
JOFOCs of $100,000 and  less are reviewed
through the functional review process at the
operational level.

• Perform annual reviews of major contract
activities and contract operations in the field.
In this function, review Justifications for Other
than Full and Open Competition and general
documentation requirements for the award of
prime contracts and subcontracts.

• Serve  as the EPA spokesperson for
competition to industry,  other Government
agencies, and EPA program offices.

Competition Results
Since  The Enactment Of The
Competition In Contracting
Act Of 1984

The EPA has consistently maintained an
outstanding performance in its award of
contracts by the competitive process. Full and
open competition has allowed the Agency to
reduce overall costs for its requirements and
broaden its contractor base. By having more
qualified, interested firms participating in the
contracting program, the Agency will continue
to maintain an excellent  competitive posture.
EPA staff are convinced  that competition

 provides lower costs, better cost control, higher
 quality, improved schedules; and a stronger
 industrial base. All these contribute to efficient
 use of taxpayer resources. The graph below
 depicts EPA's percentages of actions and
 dollars awarded competitively.
     As in the past, these statistics are evidence
 that the Agency has recognized the need for
 and successfully achieved competition
 throughout EPA's programs. The Agency is
 continuously investigating new methods to
 competitively award contracts for its
 requirements and is obtaining greater response
 from the contracting community to its
 solicitations. The section on "Specific Areas in
 Which Competition has been Enhanced"
 provides impressive examples of innovative
 acquisition techniques.

   Competitive  Awards FY87 - FY92
     FY87  FY88  FY89  FY90   FY91  FY92
   3  Total $ Obligated-Competitively
   S3 • Total Actions Awarded Competitively

Promoting Competition

Acquisition and program personnel at all levels
continue to challenge barriers to competition.
Specific areas in which competition has been
enhanced in FY 92 are discussed later in this
pamphlet. Contract and Program Specialists
continue to emphasize competition by:

• Analyzing major acquisitions involving a number
of separate tasks to determine the acquisition
method best suited to enhance competition. This
includes examining each task and  determining
whether to separate tasks or combine them,
depending on which method is most likely to
generate the most competition.

• Improving the quality of specifications and
statements of work, including in certain instances,
publishing proposed requirements for public
comment prior to issuance of a solicitation.

• Encouraging advance planning involving the
contracting officer 'and ACA. Competition is best
achieved when planned for early in the
acquisition cycle. In some instances, all fiscal
year requirements are being reviewed at the
beginning of the year to develop a total
contract strategy for a particular technical

• Researching technological developments and
market trends to determine existing sources of
supply and develop additional sources in support of
the entire range of the Agency's acquisition needs.

• Taking proactive measures to increase the number
of proposals received. These include market
surveys, counseling contractors to make them
more aware of EPA's requirements, holding
preproposal conferences to allow dialogue
between the Government's contract and.
program personnel and the contractor
community, conducting post-award surveys of
non-bidders and holding general program
requirements conferences.

• Coordinating the activities of various subject
matter specialists (engineers, attorneys, scientists,
financial analyst, contract specialists) as necessary
to carry out the plans and goals for increasing
competition throughout the Agency.

• Promoting competition at procurement
conferences and training seminars, to program
personnel,  contracting operations,  and small
purchase activities. Participants discuss results of
the previous fiscal year and goals and  plans for
the next fiscal year. Question and answer
sessions help to communicate the Office's
competition philosophy and the requirements
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

• Disseminating written policies and procedures
throughout the Agency. The ACA annually
updates the pamphlet describing EPA's

 competition program, which is distributed to
 Agency personnel and to members of the
 contract community.

 • Stimulating greater competition in
 subcontracting. EPA conducted contractor
 purchasing system reviews at 13 major
 contractor facilities during FY 92.
 Approximately eight reviews are planned for
 FY 93. A fundamental element of these reviews
 is the degree of competition exercised by prime
 contractors in their award of subcontracts.
 Contractor file documentation is reviewed to
 assure that competition is emphasized.
 Reviewers counsel contractors regarding the
 required documentation to support a
 subcontract award.

 Dollar Goals And
 For FY 92

 Overall, EPA obligated 96 percent of its
 contract and small purchase dollars available
 for competition under full and open
    The Agency established specific FY 92
 competition goals for all major programs. The
 ACA and the program competition
 coordinators mutually agreed to a percentage
 of dollars, ranging from 95 percent to 97
 percent, that would be obligated for their
 requirements through full and open
 competition. The ACA reported progress
 toward  these goals to each program monthly.
    All  except two programs met their goals in
 FY 92. These two programs came within 3
 percent  of meeting their goals. The primary
 reasons  for not meeting goals were the
 realignment of projects within the overall
 program and the establishment of long term
 contracting strategies. Long term strategies take
 time to implement and may cause the need for
 "bridging the gap." sole sources prior to
 implementation. EPA obligated 98 percent of
 its available dollars for contracts in excess of
 $25,000 through full and open competition
 equalling its FY 91's performance. The FY 92
percent remains exceptionally high and
continues to reflect the emphasis placed by

EPA personnel on awarding contracts through
the competitive process.
    Of the small purchase dollars (contract
actions of $25,000 or less) available for
competition in FY 92, 74 percent of these
dollars were obligated competitively. This
percentage is consistent with EPA's past record
and is considered excellent for the types of
requirements purchased using this means.
    At the end of this pamphlet is a chart of
FY 92 statistics.

Justifications For
Other Than  Full And
Open Competition

Only four percent of the Agency's obligated
contract dollars were awarded without full and
open competition. As in the past, EPA limited
approvals of Justifications for Other than Full
and Open Competition (JOFOCs) to those
instances where, for example, the Agency had
no other choice but to award on a
noncompetitive basis. Situations when this
occurs include if scientific objectives and
Congressional mandates were to be achieved;
when the public health and welfare was at
stake; when time was of the essence to
alleviate an immediate  danger; or to allow
additional time for the  award of a follow-on
contract. EPA will again strive to reduce
noncompetitive situations in EPA during FY

Functional Reviews

The ACA performed functional reviews at
three major contract activities. They are the
Superfund/RCRA Procurement Operations
Division in Washington DC, the Contracts
Management Division in Cincinnati, and the
Contracts Management Division in Research
Triangle Park. The ACA issued a report on
competition for each activity and held
discussions with senior contract personnel.
The following areas were reviewed and found
in substantial compliance with the Competition
in Contracting Act:

» Justifications for Other than Full and Open

• Degree of competition obtained for prime
contract awards.

• Competition in subcontract awards.

• The contract activity's role in enhancing

• Documentation of source selection for
contract awards.

 • Awards made under the 8(a) program.

    Improvements are needed in the following

 1) the need for the prime contractor to obtain
 government consent prior to subcontracting
 and improve the  submission of related
 backup information; 2) the prime contractor's
 decision to subcontract or compete the
 requirement in-house, 3) the contracting
 officers counsel of the prime contractor on the
 need for increased competition, 4) less reliance
 by prime contractors  on the "uniqueness"
 exception  to exempt the subcontract
 requirement from competition.
     Contract personnel from the Quality
 Assurance Staff performed reviews at two
 small purchase activities during FY 92. The
 reviews verified that file documentation was in
 general compliance with the Competition in
 Contracting Act  and  has improved over past
 years.  Contract personnel will correct those
 areas where inadequacies were found.
     The ACA and reviewers again emphasized
  competition in all exit debriefings following the
  on-site functional reviews. They also held
  meetings  with contract specialists and
  contracting officers to emphasize and promote
  the use of competitive procedures.

    Specific Areas
    In Which Competition
    Has Been Enhanced
                           COmPetiti°n - -any
    FY 92 including the following:

    Purchasing and Contracts
    Management Branch

    The Small Purchases Unit at Headquarters
    continues to improve its competitive
    procurement by consistently soliciting at least
    three sources for each procurement estimated
    above $2500. The staff Attends trade shows and
   meets with vendors to enhance its knowledge

         6      aVailablG f°r Particular
   *c ,In add*ion' ** staff continues to improve
   £ n£P   /? P°,StUre ^ the incased use of
   the Office ofSmal  and Disadvantage Business
   Utilization. This effort ensures that minority
   f^/or women-owned firms are identified and
   included on the source lists for competitive
   procurements.                   ^
      The staff made a concerted effort to ensure
   that all requirements for Blanket Purchase
  Agreements (BPA's) were competed,  to the
  tehteRP? ?SS£!e/ P«°r ? the estab«shment of
  the BPA s.  This effort has substantially reduced
  the number of BPA's established on a
  noncompetitive basis.

  Remedial Action Branch
           6 T °{™mPetiti™> a reduction of
 snm.r     ffamated cost of a traditionally sole
 source effort was realized in a follow-on effort
     Procurement planning began well over a '
 year ago when contract personnel and the
 Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED) of
 OERR explored the possibility of seeking
 competition for the requirement entitled
 T  Tn^m  SuPP°rt for the National Priorities
 List (NPL) Program." Three previous contracts
 for these services had been awarded to the
 Mitre Corporation on a sole source basis  A
 source sought synopsis was published in the
 Commerce Business Daily on September 4

 1991. The contracting officer received ten
 responses and with this evidence that a
 competitive market existed, determined to
 proceed competitively.
    The RFP was issued to 152 interested firms
 on March 10,1992. The contracting officer
 received four proposals and, after technical and
 business evaluations of the proposals,
 determined that two firms were within the
 competitive range. Contract personnel
 conducted negotiations with both firms and
- awarded a contract to Viar and Company in
 the amount of $16,524,246.
     Contract personnel performed a        •
 comparative analysis of the estimated cost of
 the new contract with the actual costs under
 the current contract. The analysis revealed that
 the average rate per hour had been reduced
 from $79 per hour under the current contract
 to $52 96 per hour under the new contract, a
 reduction of 33% in estimated contract cost.
 The Statement of Work for this effort remained
  essentially unchanged from earlier versions so
  the reduction in costs can be attributed to its
  competitive nature.
  Regional Contract
  Placement Branch
  The primary function of the Regional Contract
  Placement Branch (RCPB) is to implement flie
  Lone Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS).  Ihe
  strategy addresses the long term contracting
  needs of the Superfund program in a portfolio
  of Superfund contracts for the next ten years.
  During the last year RCPB has been actively
  involved in implementing these contracts, in
   particular, the classes of contracts known as
   Enforcement Support Services (ESS), Superfund
   Technical Assistance and Response Team
   (START), Time Critical/Rapid Response
   (TC/RR), and Response Action Contracts
   Strategy (RACS).
       One of the key principles of the LTCb is
   enhancement of the competitive environment
   by reducing the size of contracts and thus
   creating more opportunities for small and
   disadvantaged businesses. In the case of Ebb,
   the Agency published a Request for
   Information (RFI) in the Commerce Business
   Daily (CBD) to canvass the market to

   determine the probable extent of competition
   As a result, the Agency reshaped a zonal based
   program into a regional one. This approach
   allows for more, smaller contracts which
   should increase competition. More firms
   exist which are able to perform a smaller
   regional versus a larger zonal effort. These
   procurements are currently in process.  ESS is
   the successor program to the Technical
   Enforcement Support (TES) program.
      The START program represents another
   class of contracts which is being revamped
   from a zonal to a regional basis. It is a
   combination of the  former Field Investigative
   Team (FIT) and Technical Assistance Team,
   (TAT) programs. Although these two programs
  are being combined, the shift from a zonal to
  regional bases should result in a larger number
  of smaller contracts. This should increase the
  number of firms able to perform the effort.
     The TC/RR program, the successor to the
  Emergency Cleanup Services Contracts (ERCS)
  program, is also being decentralized from a
  zonal to a regional basis. Smaller contracts
  focusing on a smaller geographical area should
  result in more firms participating in the
  program. As in  the case of ESS, the TC/RR
  program published a RFI announcement in the
  CBD  to test the market for competitive
     The RACs program is the follow-on
  program to the Alternative Remedial
  Contracting Strategy (ARCS). The number of
 regional versus zonal contracts will increase in
 accordance with the  LTCS.  The competitive
 benefits should be comparable to the TC/RR
 program where concentration on a smaller
 geographic area of the region, versus the larger
 geographical area of  the zone, should result in
 more competition among interested firms.
    A program that does not exist under the
 LTCS, but which RCPB is examining, is Federal
 Facility Oversight. RCPB recently published a
 RFI announcement in the CBD to assess the
 level of competition that exists for supporting
 such a program.
    Another effort that RCPB was involved in
 last year to increase competition was the Pre-
 Quahfied Offerers Procurement (PQOPS)
 program. In  this program, the Agency
examines firms' capabilities and then

 establishes a pool of qualified contractors
* among which it competes requirements on a
%price basis. PQOPS
 supports site specific activities. RCPB awarded
 one PQOPS effort last year and has another in
 process for FY 93.

 Procurement Operations Branch


  The Workstations solicitation was issued as
  two separate lots, one for hardware and one
  for services. This allowed for maximum
  competition. Firms providing supplies/services
  applicable only to one of the lots could
  participate as well as firms providing
  supplies/services for both.


  The supercomputer  solicitation was issued
  with performance and functional type
  specifications to maximize the number of
  potential offerers. The specifications and
  approach of the RFP allowed for a large
  variety of solutions  which in turn created more

  Facilities Management and
   Telecommunications Services

   During the initial stages of these two awards,
   the National Data Processing Division (NDPD)
   and the Procurement Operations Branch  (POB)
   had planned to issue one  solicitation with two
   lots. However, in order to enhance
   competition, the requirement was broken into
   two different solicitations. Each solicitation
   allowed offerers to team with partners for
   bidding purposes.  In addition, a
   subcontracting plan was required which
   mandated 35% participation of small
   businesses. This approach allowed for broader
   competition than originally planned.

   Facilities Management—
    UNISYS Contract

    EPA actively promoted competition of
    subcontracts under this contract. Emphasis on

   competition continues to be achieved through
   comprehensive reviews, follow-up of
   deficiencies, and denial of Contracting Officer
   consent when competition is not provided. As
   a result, subcontracts issued under this contract
   are primarily competitive procurements.

   High Speed Laser

   This procurement involves full and open
   competition. In order to make the procurement
   more competitive, FOB revised the initial
  requirement of a prime contractor providing all
  of the equipment and maintenance to breaking
  the procurement into three lots to foster greater
  competition and lower prices.

  International Telecommunications

  This procurement involved full and open
  competition. The specifications were carefully
  written to allow any firm in the international
  telecommunications arena an opportunity to
  bid.                                 J

  Competitive GSA
  Schedule Buys

  FOB awarded numerous delivery orders off
  GSA schedules. These required desk-top
  competition. In most cases, three or more firms
  were contacted to bid on these orders.

 OPPE Competition
            f ,Policy' PlanninS ™d Evaluation
       , and the Procurement Operations
 Branch (FOB) have taken steps to enhance
 competition in OPPE's contracting. In February
 1992, OPPE and FOB held a joint conference
 where information on OPPE
 contracts was presented to over 100 members
 of the vendor community. OPPE contracts are
 being broken into smaller contracts in order to
 encourage more offers. Some contracts will be
 small business set-asides, some  8(a)s, and some
 rully competitive in order to develop multiple
 sources for future procurements. Attempts are
 being made to limit contract awards to one per
 firm on some procurements where multiple
awards are expected.  The intent is to develop

multiple sources and thereby enhance
competition in the future.

RTF Contracts Management Division

RTF made a concerted effort to split the large
level-of-effort "mission-type" acquisitions into
smaller actions in order to enhance competition
and expand the competitive base. They are as

 • Several acquisitions involved splitting the
levelLof-effort into three separate contracts
which would be awarded either as a small-
business set-aside, under full and open
competition, or under the 8(a) program.
Specific examples include:

 — "Statistical Analysis Support for the
     Assessment of Toxic Substances" in
     support of the Office of Prevention,
     Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

 — "Evaluations of Air Quality Modeling
     Techniques" in support of the Office of Air
     and Radiation.

 « Several Requests for Proposals were issued
 which indicated award for an equal number of
 hours would be made to two separate
 contractors. It was specifically stated that the
 same contractor could not receive two awards.
 Examples include:

  — "Development and Implementation of an
     Acid Rain Program" in support of the
     Office of Air and Radiation.

  — "Technical Support for the Stratospheric
     Ozone Protection Program" in support of
     the Office of Air and Radiation.

  •  The requirements for several programs were
...separated into distinct work areas. This
 "resulted in the award of separate contracts
  rather than one large or several parallel
  contracts with the same statement of work.
  Examples include:

     — "Technical Support to the Stationary Source
        Compliance Division" in the Office of Air
        and Radiation.

     — "Technical Support for Air Emissions
        Inventory" in support of the Office of Air

        RTF sponsored a minority business mini-
    trade fair and seminar designed to 1) introduce
    minority firms to EPA purchasing agents, 2)
    give minority businesses an opportunity to
    display their products and discuss potential
    business with EPA, and 3) identify minority
    vendors who could meet EPA's requirements.

    Cincinnati Contracts
   Management Division (CMD)

   In the first quarter of FY 1992, a  Quality Action
   Team (QAT) was formed in CMD's Acquisition
   Management Branch to study the
   presolicitation planning process. The QAT
   recommended revising the presolicitation
   planning process. As a result, CMD has revised
   the process for FY 1993 to include a team
   approach to preplanning. The team includes
   the project officer, the contracting officer the
   procurement analyst, the contract specialist,
   legal counsel and in  those instances where
   there is an existing contract, the contracting
•  officer for the existing contract. The team
  approach to determine the best acquisition
  strategy will identify potential conflicts and
  vulnerabilities early  in the process prior to
  issuance of a Request for Proposal.  It will also '
  identify opportunities to  maximize competition
  through clearer definition of the statement of
  work and by breaking apart requirements
  where appropriate.
     In the second quarter of FY 1992, CMD
  revised procedures associated with 8(a)
  program support. The new procedures require
  closer coordination between the program, the
  Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
  Utilization (OSDBU), the contracting officer
 and the procurement analyst during the
 acquisition planning stage of each
 procurement. The new procedures help assure
 selection of the best acquisition strategy
     In FY 1992, CMD devoted one FTE to a

joint effort with the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to review all onsite
contracts at each ORD laboratory. During these
reviews, ORD and CMD representatives
focused attention not only on contract
management issues but on the lack of
competition on large onsite contracts, stressing
the development of contracting strategies
which promote competition.
    In July, CMD met with the Office of Water,
the Office of Science and Technology, and the
Engineering and Analysis Division (OST) to
develop competitive strategies for effluent
guideline support. The group considered
breaking contracts into functional areas rather
than including all effluent support efforts in
one contract and awarding contracts with
potential seven year terms to cover the effluent
guideline development process. In August,
CMD participated in an open meeting with
contractors which had been announced in the
CBD. The meeting sought contractor input on
how to make solicitations more competitive.
Fifty contractor representatives attended the
meeting. Additional  meetings with OST are
planned to develop contracting strategies
 which will maximize competition for upcoming
     CMD continues  to actively promote and
 seek competition on all  awards as indicated by
 the following examples:

     CMD has delayed recompetition of four
     large onsite laboratory contracts to enhance
     competition by better defining the
     Statement of Work  and  by breaking out
     discrete functions to be  competed
     separately. In one instance, CMD reduced
     a three year contract to  one year when
     only one proposal was received. CMD is
     currently working with the program on a
     market survey to determine whether the
     contract should be  split into two
     requirements in order to attract

     When CMD received only one proposal in
     response to an I/M testing contract, the
     contracting officer  extended the proposal
     period. During that extension, the contract
      specialist called every firm on the mailing

        list to inquire what could be done to
        promote interest in the solicitation.
        Although firms did not identify any
        specific measures that could be taken, one
        firm stated that it would  propose if the
        proposal period was extended another 30
        days. Even though CMD's extensive efforts
        resulted in the submission of just two
        proposals, this represented a 100%
        improvement over the previous four
        solicitations for these services each of
       which had only one respondent. The
       program was also put on  notice that a
       more aggressive competition strategy will
       be required for future I/M testing

   Plans For Increasing
   Competition In FY 93

   EPA personnel will take the following actions
   to increase competition in FY 93:

   • The ACA will continue to review all
  acquisition plans and planning documents
  Innovative processes will continue to be
  developed to meet the needs of developing
  additional sources.  The ACA will recommend
  breaking apart requirements to enhance

  • Contract personnel will continue to
  emphasize clear statements of work and
  unbiased evaluation criteria in developing
  requests for proposals. A major goal for FY 93
  is the reduction of the incumbent advantage.

  • Members of EPA's contract staff will
  continue to promote competition in acquisition
  courses presented to program personnel and to
  the contractor community. The pamphlet
 explaining the competition advocacy program
 will be updated and disseminated to EPA
 personnel and industry.

 • The ACA will continue to review all
 Justifications for Other than Full  and Open
 Competition in excess of $100,000 making
 recommendations to the Office Director relative
 to these determinations and suggesting

    methods to reduce these noncompetitive

• The ACA and program personnel will agree
upon goals for obligating dollars through the
competitive process. The ACA will continue to
monitor FY 93 competition goals for obligation
of program funds.

• The ACA will meet with the division
directors and other contract and program
personnel to ensure all competition goals are
met and policies and procedures for
competition are followed. The ACA will
emphasize advance planning at all meetings.

 •  Contract personnel and the ACA will
continue to perform functional reviews.
Reviewers will stress full and open competition
in all exit debriefings following reviews of
 contract activities. Contract personnel will
 place emphasis on obtaining better
 competition,  establishing  additional sources,
 and reducing the "incumbent advantage".

              FY 1992 Competition Statistics

     Procurement Actions
     Over $25,000
  Number    Percentage    Dollar       Percent
  Of         Of Available   Obligations   OfAvai
  Actions     Actions       ($)          Dollars
1. Actions Available
for Competition

A. Actions Competed 7,680 98
B. Actions Not
C. Total Available
2. Actions Excluded*
3. Total Actions
180 2
7,860 100



   Procurement Actions
   $25,000 and Below
Number ,  Percentage"    Dollar       Percentag
Of        Of Available    Obligations    OfAvailat
Actions     Actions        ($)          Dollars
1. Actions Available
for Competition
A. Actions Competed
B. Actions not
C. Toy Available
2. Actions Excluded"
3. Total Actions

12,015 65
6.387 . 35
18,402 100

67,498 74
23,624 26
91,122 100
            ' Represents open market purchases of $1,000 and below
             when are not required to be competed under the
             Federal Acquisition Regulation