Consideration of other Scenarios for POST AWARD Bid protests
- Marina
- Dec 18, 2019
- 3 min read
THE AGENCY MADE A MODIFICATION WHICH EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT
Was there a material difference between the contract as awarded and the contract as modified?
Has the nature and purpose of the work material or substnaitlly changed?
Were there reasonably unanticipated changes in the type of work, cost or performance period? ( Change in price alone may not be sufficient)
Would the change materially change the field of competition for the procurement? (Inapplicable if the modification was in response to unforeseen difficulties encountered by the parties during contract performance.)
IF AN AGENCY’S NEEDS CHANGE AFTER A SOLICITATION HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE AGENCY MUST ISSUE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOLICITATION IN ORDER TO ENSURE ALL QUALIFIED OFFERORS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT REVISED PROPOSALS. THIS OBLIGATIONS CONTINUES TO EXIST UNTIL THE TIME OF AWARD.
Did the agency fail to issue an amendment to the solicitation after it realized its requirements have changed materially?
At the time of award, did the Agency know its requirements were most likely going ot change materially, post award?
Did the agency award the contract, with the intent to modify the terms or requirements, post award?
Did the agency actually issue a material modification shortly after contract award?
AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST OCCURS WHEN A CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE, OR POTENTIALLY UNABLE, TO RENDER IMPARTIAL ASSISTANCE OR ADVICE TO THE GOVERNMENT OR HAS AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE DUE TO HIS ACTIVIITES OR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS.
Did the agency fail to identify and evaluate a major potential organizational conflict of interest?
Was the agency's judgment regarding the potential for an organization conflict of interest, reasonably and adequately documented?
Did your competitor have access to nonpublic information under another contract, placing them at an unfair competitive advantage in competing for an award?
Did your competitor obtain your proprietary information when they were providing advisory services to the Government?
Did all competitors have equal access to source selection information?
Has your competitor somehow established or significantly influenced the ground rules for a procurement in which it is competing? ( For example, did your competitor prepare the complete specifications or the statement of work or materials? This does not apply if the competitor is the one who designed or developed the products being procured)
Does your competitor have any of its personnel, or its subcontractors on the evaluation or source selection team for the procurement?
Is your competitor required to recommend policies that could have significant impact on its financial interests? For example, would its recommendations impact the sale and use of its commercial products?
If there is an organizational conflict of interest, is there an adequate mitigation plan in place?
Conversely, have you been excluded from a competition based on the alleged existence of an organizational conflict of interest? Did they consider your mitigation plan?
IF YOU BELIEVE THE AGENCY INCORRECTLY DETERMINED ANOTHER OFFEROR IS RESPONSIBLE, AND CAPABLE OF PERFORMING ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO : (1) IDENTIFY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT INFORMATION OR OTHERWISE VIOLATED A STATUTE OR REGULATIONS; OR (2) ALLEGE THAT A DEFINITVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERION IN THE SOLICITATION WAS NOT MET.
Did the agency waive any specific and objective standards for your competitor? (These are usually specific and/or objective standards established by the agency to serve as preconditions to award and designed to measure a prospective contractor’s ability to successfully perform the contract.)
But for the agency's actions, would you have had a substantial chance of receiving the award?
Comments