Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
" Further, it is held that "a material misrepresentation in the certifications (bid) generally provides a basis for rejection of the proposal or reevaluation of the award decision." Thus, it can be said that if a challenge shows a material misrepresentation in the awardee's bid, than their challenge should be upheld.
In Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (U.S. App. 2001), the issue was the standard of review for decisions of contracting officers made under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. According to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, "The Court of Federal Claims and district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over bid protest actions, and that the courts 'shall review the agency's decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5' of the APA. Accordingly, under the APA, a bid award may be set aside if the contracting official's decision laced a...
Further, under the APA, although an explanation is not required by the officer, a reviewing court may require an explanation. It is on this ground that the Court remands the decision to the lower court.
Finally, in the administrative decision of in the Matter of Savantage Financial Services, Inc. (2003), held that a business may challenge an agency decision to not provide the business with a solicitation for purchase where the decision was made pursuant to FAR 8.404(b)(3) and where the business did not appear to offer best value, as determined by the agency, based on information obtained from schedule vendors and product demonstrations. However, despite the ability to challenge such indirect pre-solicitation decisions, the review board further ruled that such practice was reasonable under the standard of review laid out in the above-mentioned court and administrative decisions.
In the 2004 decision of in the matter of ACS Government Services, Inc., another decision involving the challenge to the awarding of a contract to another business, Plaintiff argues that the awardee misrepresented information in their bid and that this misrepresentation materially affected the evaluation of the awardee's bid. In this case, the court upheld the challenge, stating that on review it was the review board's position to ensure that the evaluation of the parties bids was "reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation." Further, it is held that "a material misrepresentation in the certifications (bid) generally provides a basis for rejection of the proposal or reevaluation of the award decision." Thus, it can be said that if a challenge shows a material misrepresentation in the awardee's bid, than their challenge should be upheld.
In Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (U.S. App. 2001), the issue was the standard of review for decisions of contracting officers made under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. According to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, "The Court of Federal Claims and district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over bid protest actions, and that the courts 'shall review the agency's decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5' of the APA. Accordingly, under the APA, a bid award may be set aside if the contracting official's decision laced a rational basis or involved a violation of regulation or a procedure. Further, under the APA, although an explanation is not required by the officer, a reviewing court may require an explanation. It is on this ground that the Court remands the decision to the lower court.
Finally, in the administrative decision of in the Matter of Savantage Financial Services, Inc. (2003), held that a business may challenge an agency decision to not provide the business with a solicitation for purchase where the decision was made pursuant to FAR 8.404(b)(3) and where the business did not appear to offer best value, as determined by the agency, based on information obtained from schedule vendors and product demonstrations. However, despite the ability to challenge such indirect pre-solicitation decisions, the review board further ruled that such practice was reasonable under the standard of review laid out in the above-mentioned court and administrative decisions.
Security is, as expected, extremely tight, and because of this, the Pentagon also houses shopping facilities, banks, a bus and subway station, and numerous restaurants (Johnson). Employees do not need to leave the building once they arrive each day, which makes it easier to manage security. The building also has its own sewage treatment plant, and heating and cooling facilities (Johnson). In conclusion, the Pentagon is much more than a
Institutional Framework of Federal Acquisitions Government agencies rely heavy on contracting officers to obtain goods and services at fair prices and in a timely manner. This is possible with the billions of dollars tax dollars entrusted to them annually. Evidently, it is necessary for purchasing agencies along with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to create accountability in organizations and continue to improve weaknesses in key
ERP Irby's report on ERP at the different levels of government highlights that there are two different approaches -- the software approach and the consulting approach. To consider the differences in how governments use these, the differences between them from an end user standpoint need to be understood. In a software approach, the client buys the software, and there is only a limited revenue stream annually thereafter. Thus, much of the
(Vancketta, 1999) The 'Changes' clause enables the Government "to make unilateral changes to the contract during performance, so long as those changes fall within the contract's scope." The Standard 'Changes' clause utilized in fixes price supply contracts allows the CO to make changes in writing to: 1) the drawings, designs, or specifications when the item is being specifically manufactured for the government; 2) the method of shipment or packing; or 3) the place
A micro considers the interests and rights of the individual company as the primary concern. Both of these views are valid depending on the lens that one wishes to use. The problem arises when the government is forced to develop policies regarding procurement in this volatile debate. The government must decide whether to take a micro view, favoring the rights of companies, or a macro view that places the
Government Web Site Analysis Doing Business With the Government Because of the size of federal government, there are often opportunities for businesses to work fiscally with the government. When businesses research the possibility of doing business with the government, the verbiage shows that while there are a number of steps necessary in order to qualify for government contracts, there are also tremendous opportunities. When dealing with the ethical issues surrounding government contracts, it