Corrective Action Needs Correcting
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.12.05
In Resource Consultants, Inc. (June 2, 2004 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2930733.pdf), the GAO sustained a protest because the agency had "abandoned" one of the ground rules for the re-evaluation of proposals, a re-evaluation that had been conducted as corrective action in response to an earlier protest. According to GAO, while the terms of the re-evaluation permitted offerors to submit revised price proposals only, revisions to the awardee's staffing costs were so extensive as to constitute technical proposal revisions; therefore, the agency should have permitted all offerors to submit revised technical proposals.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
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].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
