Lawmakers want to know if Defense Department contractors are gaming the bid protest process, according to language included in the National Defense Authorization Act.I'm certainly looking forward to the results of such a study, assuming it will be a study. It will go some way towards answering the validity of cries over the "frivolity" of protests. I disagree with many protests, and other actions taken in the course of solicitations, but agree that any colorable claim of material irregularity is ripe for adjudication; otherwise, lumps in the rug will grow from all that gets swept under.
The NDAA, which passed out of House Armed Services Committee on a 60 to 2 vote April 30, instructs DoD to commission a study regarding how Defense Department contractors use - and possibly manipulate - the bid protest process.
The NDAA asks DoD to analyze:
• If contractors who currently have a DoD contract enter a bid protest to delay the implementation of new contracts that would draw business away from the old one. The Government Accountability Office has up to 100 days to review a bid protest and render a decision.
• The extent to which companies file bid protests even when they do not believe the Defense Department made an error in order to delay or otherwise disrupt the process.
• Whether there are net benefits for companies filing a protest or indicating they plan on filing a protest.
Bid protests across government increased in fiscal 2014 to 2,561 – up from 2,429 in fiscal 203. The Government Accountability Office only upheld about 13 percent of bid protests filed by companies that year.
But the effectiveness rate – when an agency and contractor come to a settlement either before GAO makes a decision or after it sustains a protest – held steady at 43 percent of all cases.
Labels and Tags
Accountability (66) Adequate documentation (5) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (14) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (28) Competitive position (2) Compliance (32) Conflict of interest (28) Contract administration (24) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (1) Contractor responsibility (18) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (32) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (34) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (35) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (13) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (6) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (28) Mistakes (3) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (31) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (46) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (88) Principles of procurement (21) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (75) Procurement ethics (17) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (15) Procurement procedures (29) Procurement reform (57) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (1) Protest - timing (10) Protests - general (35) Purposes and policies of procurement (9) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (3) Responsiveness (11) Restrictive specifications (4) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (46) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (1) Standards of review (2) Standing (5) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (9) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (59) Uniformity (5) Unsolicited proposals (2)
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Many a crocodile tear has to fall, but it's all in the game
Defense bill asks if contractors are gaming bid protests