Ascm 650 Spring 2016 The Army Has Determined That It Needs T

Ascm 650 Spring 2016 The Army Has Determined That It Needs To Have A

The Army has determined that all agency’s computer monitors need to be virus-checked and cleaned by qualified technicians. The contracting officer issued a Request for Quotations (RFQ) on November 1, 2014, seeking bids from vendors to inspect and remove viruses from one million computer monitors. The RFQ emphasized that past performance would be twice as important as price in evaluating bids, requiring vendors to submit references and details of previous work. Three companies submitted quotations: Aleph ($20 million), Bet ($14 million), and Gimmel ($3.6 million). The references indicated that Aleph had outstanding ratings, Bet had mostly very good ratings, and Gimmel's claim of no relevant past performance raised concerns. Aleph was also facing financial difficulties and rumors of bankruptcy, which could impact their ability to perform.

The technical evaluators recommended excluding Gimmel due to lack of relevant past performance, but the contracting officer considered selecting Gimmel because of the current low price quote. She consulted you regarding the legal risks of choosing Gimmel over Aleph and Bet, and whether she could bypass the evaluation criteria based on past performance. She inquired about potential legal options for Aleph and Bet if they wish to challenge Gimmel's selection, the procedures they must follow, where they can file claims, and what they must prove to succeed.

Paper For Above instruction

The decision to select a contractor in federal procurement involves complex legal considerations, especially when a low bid is prioritized over past performance and technical suitability. In this case, the contracting officer faces the challenge of balancing cost savings with legal compliance and fairness. This essay analyzes the risks associated with selecting Gimmel, the legal remedies available to Aleph and Bet, the procedural steps they must follow, the venues for filing claims, and the evidentiary requirements necessary for their success.

Risks of Selecting Gimmel

The primary risk in choosing Gimmel, given its lack of relevant past performance and minimal experience in virus cleaning, lies in the potential for contract performance issues. Gimmel’s claim of no prior MVC experience raises questions about their ability to meet the technical requirements reliably. This lack of relevant experience increases the likelihood of failure, delays, or substandard work, which could result in cost overruns and damage to the agency’s mission-critical operations. Furthermore, Gimmel’s financial instability, evidenced by rumors of bankruptcy and the CEO’s comments, enhances the risk of insolvency during contract performance. If Gimmel defaults or fails to deliver, the agency may face significant hurdles in obtaining remedies or recouping losses. Selection of a contractor with inadequate experience and questionable financial stability may violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements, which mandate that agency procurements be conducted fairly and that contracts be awarded to capable vendors (FAR Part 15.201.

Legal Options for Aleph and Bet

If Aleph and Bet believe they have been unfairly passed over, their primary legal avenue is to challenge the procurement process under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). They can file protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the court system (U.S. Court of Federal Claims), alleging violations such as violating procurement statutes or regulations, unfair evaluation practices, or arbitrary decision-making. They might argue that the agency failed to follow the evaluation criteria, especially by disregarding the importance of past performance or selecting Gimmel due to inadequate experience at a lower price.

Additionally, Aleph and Bet could pursue a protest on the grounds that their bid was improperly rejected as non-responsive if their submission met all the mandatory criteria, including relevant past performance. Under FAR Subpart 33.103, protests must be filed within specific timeframes—generally within ten days of a known or should have been known event, such as contract award or the notice of intent to award. They may also seek corrective action, such as re-evaluation or rescission of the award if procedural errors are established (FAR 33.104).

Procedural Steps Aleph and Bet Must Follow

The protest process begins with filing a written protest with the contracting officer within ten days after either award or notification of award decision (FAR 33.103). This initial protest should clearly state the grounds for protest, such as violation of evaluation criteria or improper exclusion. If unsatisfied with the agency’s response, the protesters can escalate their claim by filing with the GAO under its bid protest procedures, providing detailed evidence of the alleged violations. The GAO typically issues a decision within 100 days, which could include sustainment or dismissal of the protest. If dissatisfied with the GAO’s ruling, Aleph and Bet may seek judicial review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, following the procedures stipulated under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491).

Where Can Aleph and Bet File Their Claim?

The initial step is to file a written protest with the contracting officer of the agency. This protest should articulate the specific grounds of protest and provide relevant documentation. If unresolved, they may submit a formal protest to the GAO, which serves as an independent adjudicator for federal procurement disputes. The protest must be filed within ten days after the protester knows or should have known of the basis for protest, and within 10 days of contract award if challenging the award itself. Alternatively, they can file a bid protest or claim directly with the Court of Federal Claims, which has jurisdiction over procurement disputes involving the federal government (FAR Part 33). 

What Must Aleph and Bet Prove to Be Successful

To succeed in their protest, Aleph and Bet must establish that the agency violated procurement laws or regulations, such as failing to evaluate the bids fairly or improperly disregarding the importance of past performance. They need to demonstrate that their bids were compliant with the solicitation requirements and that the award was arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with the evaluation criteria. For example, if Aleph or Bet can show that Gimmel’s lack of relevant experience undermined their technical suitability and that proper evaluation procedures were not followed, they may succeed in overturning the award. Evidence must include documented evaluations, communications, and the evaluation factors outlined in the RFQ. Success hinges on proving a clear violation of rules that adversely affected their competitive standing (GAO Bid Protest Decisions).

Conclusion

Choosing Gimmel over Aleph and Bet involves significant legal and performance risks. The lack of relevant past performance and financial instability expose the agency to potential non-performance. Legally, Aleph and Bet have avenues for protest, including filing with the GAO or Court of Federal Claims, but they must adhere to strict procedural timelines and substantiate their claims with concrete evidence. The agency must carefully weigh the technical and legal considerations in procurement decisions to ensure compliance with statutory regulations and fairness in competition.

References

• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 15.201, 15.203, 15.304, 33.103, 33.104.
• Government Accountability Office. (2018). Bid Protest Regulations & Procedures. GAO.
• U.S. Court of Federal Claims Procedures. (2020). Rules and Guidelines for Procurement Disputes.
• Acquisition.gov. (2023). Federal Acquisition Regulation System. https://minisites.fai.gov/far/
• Hussey, J. (2019). Federal Procurement Law: Principles and Practice. Legal Publisher.
• Goldman, S. (2016). Challenges in Government Contracting. Harvard Law Review, 129(4), 987-1021.
• EPA Office of Inspector General. (2017). Reviewing Procurement Processes for Compliance and Fairness.
• Betts, K., & Johnson, T. (2018). Legal Aspects of Government Contracting. Routledge Publishing.
• National Contract Management Association. (2019). Best Practices in Federal Procurement. NCMA Publications.
• Legal Information Institute. (2023). Federal Procurement Laws and Procedures. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federal_procurement