Questions

1.Does the fact that the Veterans Administration issued the solicitation as an IFB rather than an RFP have an impact on the outcome of this case?  What could the contractor have done prior to submission of bids that would have altered this case?  Why would a prospective contractor not take action prior to submission of bids?

2.Of critical importance to the outcome of this case is the conclusion of the courts that “the Government is entitled to obtain precisely what it contracts for as long as it does not mislead the contractor.”  American Elec. Contracting Corp. v. United States, 579F.2d 602, 608, 217, Ct.Cl. 338 (1978).  What policies support such a conclusion? What responsibility does a contractor have to inform the government that a proposed solution may not be the most desirable or least expensive?

3.FAR 11.105 provides:

Agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a particular brand-name product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company, unless:

a.The particular brand-name, product, or feature is essential to the government’s requirements, and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s minimum needs:

b.The authority to contract without providing for full and open competition is supported by the required justifications and approvals

What was the justification for specifying a particular brand in this instance?

Read less