Whose Fault Is a Bridge Contract?
Three bridge justifications posted on Thursday, and each one blames something different: two protests at Naval District Washington, a court case at USACE Huntsville, a 43-day shutdown at NAVFAC EXWC. The Navy's own regulation already decided which of those excuses count. Plus a sustain at DHRA with no decision text, an executive order that moved a task order's contract type ten days before responses are due, and a four-line board.
Three bridge justifications hit SAM on Thursday. Two Navy, one Army, and each blames something different for the follow-on not being ready.
"Whose fault is it when the incumbent gets another year?"
NMCARS 5206.303-91(b), one sentence: "All bridge contracts are considered awarded due to inadequate planning except in the case of protest, urgent requirements, or evaluation delays during the source selection process."
Three accepted alibis. Two of Thursday's justifications reach for one. The third reaches for nothing on the list.
Bridge 3 at Naval District Washington
J&A N40080-26-J&A-011 posted at 16:38Z, covering modification P00027 signed Sept. 29 on N4008019D0306, regional 8(a) custodial services for PWD Washington, Indian Head, Dahlgren and Patuxent River. The incumbent is NJS Joint Venture, LLC, which the justification says has held the work since 2020.
The attachment is named JA-Regl Custodial Services Bridge 3 Final_Redacted.pdf. NAVFAC Washington is counting too.
The rest of this brief is for subscribers.
The specific solicitations, dockets, and dates to act on sit past this line.
$50 a month, or $500 a year.
Already a subscriber? Sign in