Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ninja

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you GREgariousOne. There is always a risk of protest. The probability of losing the protest based on missing internal documents which are for the benefit of the agency is low based on the case law. Losing the protest would be high if the proposals were not evaluated as stated in the RFP and the process and decision were not documented. That is not the case.
  2. Ji20874 Thanks for your note. No worries, I value the responses and I crafted a solution for the Agency. Though the litigation risk is low, given Agency requirements we needed to do a deviation. Also, since the TEC does not have the SSP to guide them, the CO is checking in with the panel to make sure they are clear on definitions and make sure they are evaluating consistently with the RFP.
  3. Thank you one and all. These plans are required by the Agency. However, the caselaw is very helpful is showing there is low risk in not having them. So what I glean from the responses is that FAR 7.104-5 is not a requirement for an acquisition plan and there is no requirement for an SSP. Again thank you all!
  4. The TEC is in the process of reviewing proposals and it has been discovered that though the FAR requires these plans, they were not done in advance of opening the solicitation. Should they be done after the fact or not at all now? If there is a protest is this likely to cause great risk? Would appreciate your sage thoughts.
  • Create New...