Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

If procuring a system which requires an initial startup cost for all offerors except the incumbent, what is the best way to “normalize” the pricing received in response to the solicitation? The proposal representing the best value to the Government will be selected. Is our agency required to include information in the solicitation addressing how the above costs will be addressed in the evaluation of proposals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GAO has consistently ruled that the contracting officer is not obligated to eliminate an incumbent’s competitive advantage unless there is evidence of preferential treatment or other improper action.

Here is a recent expression of GAO’s view as stated in Onsite Health Inc., B-408032; B-408032.2, May 30, 2013:

“On the other hand, it is well settled that an offeror may possess unique information, advantages, and capabilities due to its prior experience under a government contract, including performance as the incumbent contractor. Our Office has held that the government is not required to equalize competition to compensate for such an advantage, unless there is evidence of preferential treatment or other improper action. See FAR § 9.505-2(a)(3); CACI, Inc.--Fed., B-403064.2, Jan. 28, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 31 at 10; MASAI Tech. Corp., B-298880.3, B-298880.4, Sept. 10, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 179 at 8. The existence of an advantage, in and of itself, does not constitute preferential treatment by the agency, nor is such a normally occurring advantage necessarily unfair. Council for Adult & Experiential Learning, B-299798.2, Aug. 28, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 151 at 6; Government Bus. Servs. Group, B-287052 et al., Mar. 27, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 58 at 10.”

Here is an extract from a 1980 decision addressing startup costs as stated in Harris Systems Pest Control, Inc., B-198745, May 22, 1980:

“Further, there is no requirement for the government to provide special consideration to a bidder because it will incur costs that the incumbent contractor may not incur or to equalize competition merely because one firm's advantageous position results from previous contract awards. See ABC refuse collection, Inc., B-194216, June 4, 1979, 79-1 CPD 388; Field Maintenance Services Corporation, B-185339, May 28, 1976, 76-1 CPDB 350. Any new bidder would be in the same situation as the protester, and there is no indication that any advantage accruing to the incumbent contract was unfairly gained. Lastly, there is no reason at this time to conclude the option periods should not be exercised.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...