In particular, AllWorld`s decision was not made as part of a contract renewal. Nevertheless, GSA has expanded this concept of AllWorld to propose that it (GSA) cannot authorize the renewal of the separate tasks of a GSA calendar contract, even in a situation where the buyer has the same Schedule contract under the same conditions as the seller. All operating mandates under the calendar contract must be resettled at the same time as the calendar contract itself, or no innovation is permitted. But, GAO did not hold to AllWorld that a mission could not be novated from one calendar holder to another. If a calendar holder is renewed from one calendar holder to another, the order of operation is not independent of the calendar – it remains linked to the buyer`s schedule. As a result, AllWorld GSA does not prevent the novation of tasks from one calendar holder to another, but that is how ES GSA interpreted it. As noted above, the GSA`s innovation guidelines are very real barriers to the procurement process. It is important that contractors take these constraints into account in the structuring of their acquisitions, so that an otherwise successful agreement is not killed if GSA denies an innovation after closing. An innovation contract must be negotiated with your contract agent as soon as the assets have changed. In addition to compliance issues, you should be aware that contract changes can only be approved after the innovation has been completed. The lack of agreement could also have an impact on future payments for ongoing GSA missions.

b) An innovation agreement is not necessary if the ownership of a contractor is changed as a result of a share purchase without legal change to the contractor, and if the contractor has control over the assets and if the contracting party executes the contract. Whether it is an asset acquisition or a share purchase, there may be problems related to change of ownership that should be dealt with appropriately in a formal agreement between the contractor and the government (see item 42.1203 (e)). Minimizing the risk of the innovation process requires careful planning and cooperation. This should begin as soon as possible in the deal process, ideally well before a sales contract is signed, ensuring that each of the MATOCs in need of a Novation authorization is identified and evaluated. As part of this evaluation, the parties should consider whether there are opportunities for strategic or useful pipelines in relation to a MATOC and, if so, whether there will likely be proposals or evaluations of proposals while an innovation request is pending. (d) When considering whether to recognize a third party as a successor to government contracts, the competent contractor identifies and assesses significant organizational conflicts of interest in accordance with point 9.5. If the competent contractor finds that a conflict of interest cannot be resolved, but it is in the government`s interest to approve the innovation application, an application for exemption may be made in point 9.503. Matter of Engility Corp. was concerned with a MATOC for logistics support services to support the U.S. military.

Like Wyle, the HOLDER of MATOC entered into a sales contract that transferred all assets and liabilities related to the contract to another contractor and filed an application to rearmize the contract. A few weeks later, the seller and buyer worked together to submit a proposal for a new mandate under the contract. If the risk is too great for the value of the transaction induced by the uncertainty of the innovation process, the parties may consider changing the timing of the transaction so that the seller can follow the important opportunity of a pipeline before any request for innovation.