Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Expanding Existing System'.
Found 1 result
Construction project was awarded for remodeling and altering an existing facility. The specification includes a requirement for the contractor to design and install an expansion to existing brand name security system. The specification identifies the existing brand name system and provided detailed performance standards for the expansion of the brand name system. 1. The government did not prepare a brand name justification since the system was existing and it appeared redundant why the existing system needed to be expanded. Also, at this point the existing brand name system could not be changed by the government. Also, the government was not aware that only the brand name contractor was capable of designing and expanding the existing security system. 2. No protests were received either pre or post award related to the existing brand name provided in the specification. 3. Subsequent to contract award, the contractor presented an RFI indicating that it had just discovered that the brand name security system can only be expanded by the original security system manufacturer. The subcontractor indicated that it was allegedly qualified to install the system, but that it could not procure the required parts from the brand name manufacturer. 4. The contractor is requesting a contract modification in excess of $100,000 now to hire the brand name manufacturer to design and install the expansion to the existing security system. The contractor is basing its claim on the fact that the government failed to issue a single source justification for the existing security system. This fact somehow this mislead his subcontractor into believing it could perform the work and it was subsequently surprise that the system manufacturer was the only contractor capable of expanding the existing security system. The subcontractor also alleged that it bid approximately $20,000 to do this work and now finds the cost to be in excess of $100,000 and wants the government to pay the additional cost. Questions: a. Does the FAR require a brand name justification when a project requires an expansion of an existing brand name security system? b. Since none of the contractors protested the use of the brand name in the specifications, does this in any manner waive the liability assuming the regulatory sole source justification was required prior to issuing the solicitation? c. Does the fact that the brand name justification entitled the contractor to an equitable adjustment to the contract since it claimed that it only bid the expansion at a cost of $20,000 and has now found the cost from the brand name contractor to be in excess of $100,000? Thanks in advance for any idea comments or advice you may be willing to share.