Piggyback Agreements

In order for one agency to lag behind another agency`s contract, a number of requirements must be met. They are discussed in the FTA Best Practices Manual (PMPA), Section 3.3.4. Piggybacking is not allowed in these circumstances. First, when the transit agency competed with its revenue contract, the companies that made offers or proposals did not know what they had to do and whether they knew that they had significantly changed the proposals they had made. In a normal piggyback situation, bidders offer prices for a certain amount of delivery items, so all competitors know in advance what the scope of the contract will be. Their prices reflect this understanding. That was not the case with the treaty you described. It cannot be assumed that if all suppliers had been aware of your program, their offers would not have changed. The ESTV assumes not only that the fellows will make the most of these revenue-sharing contracts (which work to reduce the costs of the grant program), but also that all interested private parties will have the opportunity to benefit from the Federally Funded Property such as your parking lot, which would require a new competition procedure. (Revised: May 2010) The other aspect of this contracting that raises concerns is that the refusal of your request for an “equal” bus allowed instead of the 92 bus is rejected in the specifications.

Of course, the Agency may have an absolute requirement for 92, but it is clear that at least two builders cannot bid because of this width requirement (perhaps one or two bidders). While this may be acceptable because of the needs of this agency, it may not be defensible with respect to the 30 discretionary buses that appear to be added for the benefit of other agencies. These agencies may not have a legitimate requirement for the 92 buses and could use 102 buses, meaning that 102″ offers should be accepted for the optional quantities of 30 buses. If other agencies that “hate” this contract are unable to demonstrate why they cannot accept the 102 buses, it is inappropriate for them to withdraw the contract due to unnecessarily restrictive competition. These agencies should in fact obtain their own buses in a less restrictive specifications. We recommend drawing the attention of purchasing agency decision makers to this point in a formal written submission before accepting the offers. (Rating: May 2010) The quantities to be ordered were included in the initial offer and assessed as part of the contracting decision. Note that “piggybacking” is not eligible if the remedy would require an increase in quantities that were not initially offered and were not initially assessed as part of the awarding of the contract.

Such a market for additional quantities would constitute a non-competitive supply. This approach is sometimes referred to as tag-ons. These non-competitive purchases should be treated as such and authorized by the official exchange authorization chain.

Comments are closed.