Wifcon.Forum Archives

To Contents	Sole Source J&A - Change in Name of Offeror
By John Ford on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 - 09:23 am: Eric, you are not missing anything. When looking at an issue, its good to get some outside eyes to examine it. That way you avoid institutional bias and self interest. This helps you think straight. I know the people who contribute to these discussions are not bashful about expressing their own views free of organizational or cultural pressures. I appreciate these thoughts. By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 05:02 pm: John. I agree with Vern. The J&A keys on the unique capability, not the corporate entity. Putting aside the case where the unique capability is somehow spun off or otherwise lost in the reorganization, the novation or the merger shouldn't be an issue. Are we missing something in your scenario? Eric By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 03:23 pm: The purpose of a J&A is to document the justification for negotiating with only one source and the requisite approval to do so. In your two scenarios the J&As are based on two crucial facts: (1) there is only one responsible source for the required supplies or services and (2) no other supplies and services will satisfy the agency's requirements. As you describe it, what changes after the J&As have been processed are the legal identities of the sole sources, but not either of the two crucial facts. You do not say that (a) new sources have emerged or (b) that other supplies or services now meet the agency's needs. If the two crucial facts remain unchanged, then the J&A is still valid; if not, then the firm is not a legitimate sole source, no matter whether it's called ABC partnership, X Corp. or Y Corp. Therefore, I see no need for a new J&A in the circumstances that you describe. If I were the CO I would simply insert a memo in the file explaining that ABC partnership had become XYZ Corp., or that X Corp. had been acquired by Y Corp., but that the bases for the sole source justification remain valid. By John Ford on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 01:28 pm: I'm interested in getting feedback on the following hypothetical scenario. An agency prepares a sole source J&A to award a contract to ABC partnership. During negotiations, ABC incorporates into XYZ Corp. Does the agency need to prepare a new J&A to continue negotiations with XYZ? How about a slightly different scenario. The J&A justifies negotiating with X Corp. During negotiations, X is acquired by Y and becomes X Division of Y Corp.

Sole Source J&A - Change in Name of Offeror

By John Ford on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 - 09:23 am:

Eric, you are not missing anything. When looking at an issue, its good to get some outside eyes to examine it. That way you avoid institutional bias and self interest. This helps you think straight. I know the people who contribute to these discussions are not bashful about expressing their own views free of organizational or cultural pressures. I appreciate these thoughts.

By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 05:02 pm:

John.

I agree with Vern. The J&A keys on the unique capability, not the corporate entity.

Putting aside the case where the unique capability is somehow spun off or otherwise lost in the reorganization, the novation or the merger shouldn't be an issue.

Are we missing something in your scenario?

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 03:23 pm:

The purpose of a J&A is to document the justification for negotiating with only one source and the requisite approval to do so. In your two scenarios the J&As are based on two crucial facts: (1) there is only one responsible source for the required supplies or services and (2) no other supplies and services will satisfy the agency's requirements.

As you describe it, what changes after the J&As have been processed are the legal identities of the sole sources, but not either of the two crucial facts. You do not say that (a) new sources have emerged or (b) that other supplies or services now meet the agency's needs. If the two crucial facts remain unchanged, then the J&A is still valid; if not, then the firm is not a legitimate sole source, no matter whether it's called ABC partnership, X Corp. or Y Corp.

Therefore, I see no need for a new J&A in the circumstances that you describe. If I were the CO I would simply insert a memo in the file explaining that ABC partnership had become XYZ Corp., or that X Corp. had been acquired by Y Corp., but that the bases for the sole source justification remain valid.

By John Ford on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 01:28 pm:

I'm interested in getting feedback on the following hypothetical scenario. An agency prepares a sole source J&A to award a contract to ABC partnership. During negotiations, ABC incorporates into XYZ Corp. Does the agency need to prepare a new J&A to continue negotiations with XYZ?
How about a slightly different scenario. The J&A justifies negotiating with X Corp. During negotiations, X is acquired by Y and becomes X Division of Y Corp.