Aerospace & Defense Series: DOD Study Touts Competition Benefits in Military Purchases—Creates Implications for Future Antitrust Reviews

by McDermott Will & Emery
Contact

It is a general tenet that competition serves customers well, enabling them to acquire better products at lower prices.  Of course, this premise underlies the antitrust laws.  In the aerospace and defense industry, the customers are often government agencies that are monopsonists with significant purchasing leverage.  Government customers often have contracting mechanisms that are not generally available in the commercial marketplace, such as the ability to receive certified cost and pricing data from contractors.  From time to time, contractors have attempted to rely on arguments that the government’s buyer power and contracting rights ensure that contractors cannot impose unreasonable pricing on the government, even if there is no or limited competition.  The antitrust regulators and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) have long rejected that notion, stressing that regulation is not a substitute for competition.  A recent DoD study supports that general proposition, and provides data the DoD interprets as showing that the presence of competition improves contracting outcomes for the government.  See DoD 2014 Annual Report on the Performance of the Defense Acquisition System.  This report provides some interesting thoughts and data that may impact future antitrust agency reviews.

DoD Report

The DoD’s desire for competition is clear.  “Competition—or at least creating competitive environments—is a central tenet of our Better Buying Power initiatives.  Competition is the single best way to motivate contractors to provide the best value (i.e., the best performance at the lowest price).”  2014 Annual Report at p. 17.  DoD’s analysis of 83 contracts found that, where contracts were competed, contractors’ average margin was 5.5 percent, compared to 7.7 percent for sole-source contracts.  Also, when contracts were competed, they had lower observed price growth (11 percent compared to 48 percent) and lower observed schedule growth (0.07 years compared to 1.66 years) than contracts that were awarded sole source.  2014 Annual Report at p. 98.  Interestingly, DoD’s data show that even in the case of sole-source modifications to contracts that were initially awarded competitively, price growth and schedule growth were far lower compared to contracts that were awarded sole source at the outset.  2014 Annual Report p. 98.

DoD offered some potential explanations for the observed data. 

This data cannot tell us why cost and price growth are lower on competed contracts.  We might have expected competitors to bid below their cost estimates with the expectation of making up any losses in engineering cost changes, but that that does not appear to be happening systematically.  It might be that competition is driving bidders to conduct more careful cost analysis and thus more realistic bids.  It might also be that contractors put their best people on competitive efforts and thus have better performance.  Further analysis is needed.

2014 Annual Report p. 97.  DoD concluded that in light of the data, it must continue to strive for competition wherever possible, noting: 

Competition is effective—when viable.  Competed contracts perform better on cost, price, and schedule growth than new sole-source or one-bidder contracts in development.  (i.e., a contractor’s knowledge that a competitor is not available may affect bidding and subsequent performance relative to that bid.)  Thus, we must continue our efforts to seek competitive environments in creative ways.  Unfortunately, direct competition on some [Major Defense Acquisition Program] contracts is often not viable—especially in production, where significant entry costs, technical data rights, or infrastructure may be barriers.  In response, we are seeking ways in which competitive environments and open-system architectures will allow us to introduce competitive pressures.

2014 Annual Report p. 102.  

Implications of the DoD Report

Of course, the DoD and the military services control the nature of the procurements they use to acquire products and services, and they will determine whether their acquisition programs will change in some fashion as a result of the reported findings.  The concepts noted in the report, however, do provide some insights that may come up in the antitrust reviews of aerospace and defense mergers, investigations and teaming agreements.

Contractors may argue two competitors are enough to ensure competition.  The DoD report does not evaluate the impacts of the closeness of the competitive offerings of the firms that it identified as competitors, nor does it analyze how many competitors the winning bidder faced, other than identifying a procurement as having been “competed,” implying there was more than one bidder.  The findings of the report may provide some ammunition to contractors defending a combination that will result in only two bidders remaining for a contract.  The report indicates that the mere fact of competition results in competitive outcomes, or at least competitive benefits.  The antitrust regulators evaluating a bidding market will typically evaluate how the different potential bidders likely rank in terms of cost and technology.  They assume that a combination of the top two bidders would result in a decrease in competition because the competitive constraint had been the second-place firm, but after the merger that constraint would come from the third-place firm.  That analysis assumes, at some level, that the best-placed firm knows how the other firms will bid, so that the best-placed firm can compete less aggressively with the knowledge that the second-best competitor has a less desirable product offering, including price and technology.  Those assumptions may not hold, especially in times of declining defense spending and limited contracting opportunities.  Put more directly, is the best-positioned firm likely to pull its punches and compete less aggressively when its opponent is somewhat less formidable, or will it throw haymakers to be sure it wins, especially since the implications of loss can be so extreme?  The report offers facts to support that competition results in more competitive outcomes for the customer, and is silent on whether competition from a closer rival results in a more competitive outcome than competition from a more distant rival.

Contractors should understand the implications of the report on arguments that the government’s buying power will prevent any anticompetitive impacts from a transaction.  As noted, the antitrust enforcers have been clear that government procurement mechanisms cannot protect the customer as well as competition will.  The report provides some data from the customer itself supporting that proposition.

Contractors should not assume “franchises” will remain theirs forever, which has implications for business planning and for antitrust analysis.  The DoD indicates that it wants to increase the proportion of its purchases that are made through competitive procurements.  It has also indicated that it will try to find ways to keep systems open, so that firms that do not win the initial design contract still can compete for awards during the life of the program.  This obviously has implications for contractors’ forecasts and pipelines to the extent programs can be recompeted.  If this dynamic plays out, then one of the traditional antitrust defenses—that the procurement and selection has already occurred so the merger cannot impact competition—may become less secure.  If the government is going to take steps to try to maintain competition for future purchases of a system beyond the initial contract, then the regulators may put more focus than they historically have on possible competition between the merging companies for those potential future procurements.  Also, to the extent companies team for a procurement, they may need to focus even more on the time frame covered under that teaming agreement and whether and how the current teammates will team or compete on potential future procurements.

The DoD report provides an interesting read, and has implications for antitrust analysis applied to mergers, acquisitions and teaming agreements.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDermott Will & Emery | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McDermott Will & Emery
Contact
more
less

McDermott Will & Emery on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.