1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A New Frontier: ASBCA Issues First Ever CPAR Decision on the Merits

A New Frontier: ASBCA Issues First Ever CPAR Decision on the Merits

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.19

On June 3, 2019, the ASBCA published its first ever decision addressing the merits of a CPAR evaluation – i.e., whether CPAR ratings were “fair and accurate” pursuant to FAR 42.15. In PROTEC GmbH (ASBCA Nos. 61161, 61162), the Board analyzed a CPAR’s factual assertions, compared them to the parties’ evidence of contract performance, and ultimately held that the CPAR was indeed “fair and accurate” due to the contractor’s noncompliance and poor performance. The Board also considered the contractor’s allegation of a procedural violation – i.e., that the Government failed to perform a CPAR review “at a level above the CO” as required by FAR 42.1503(d). The Board held that the contractor “lacked standing” to challenge the violation because it could not establish “prejudice,” i.e., that the CPAR rating would have been different without the violation.  

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...