Competition in Contracting Improves Slightly Almost one-third of prime contract dollars were awarded without competition in 2009, according to the Government Accountability Office. But that’s an improvement; 36% of obligations were awarded noncompetitively in 2005, while the figure fell to 31% last year. In addition, 13% of dollars were awarded on competitive contracts that attracted only one bid. That number has stayed flat for the past five years. GAO said agencies most often justified sole-source contracts on the grounds that only one company could do the work. In many cases, program managers wanted to stick with an incumbent contractor who had proved to be capable. The auditors said contractors decided not to bid on some re-competed contracts because they felt the incumbent had the work locked up. “Given the nation’s fiscal constraints, it is not acceptable to keep an incumbent contractor in place without competition simply because the contractor is doing a good job, or to resist legitimate suggestions that competition be imposed even though it may take longer,” the report said. Some Defense Department weapons contracts had to be awarded without competition because a single company owned the technical data and refused to sell it. The second most frequent reason for sole-source awards was that contracting officers decided to use an 8(a) company. Increasing competition is a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s acquisition reform effort. In his first statement on procurement after taking office, the president pledged to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts.” (SAA, 3/26/09) The administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Dan Gordon, said he agreed with GAO’s recommendation that his office determine why contracts are attracting only one bidder. Gordon acknowledged that the administration has more work to do to improve competition. The report is GAO-10-833, available at www.gao.gov.