Neil Roberts Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) On 1/27/2019 at 4:30 AM, joel hoffman said: Neil, that Protest was cited and discussed earlier in this thread. There are some distinctions between Symvionics and this solicitation. There, the RFP was amended so that it wasn’t a pass-fail requirement to have a purchasing system that has been previously APPROVED or provable that it would pass a review and approval process to be eligible for award. Agree with what you say, Joel. And that is an important distinction compared to facts in this thread. On the other hand, Symvionics thinking is that (1) Government bias/bad faith may need to be proven and (2) the Government is not required to neutralize competitive advantage that one that one offeror may have over another. Seems possible to me that other offerors may be thought of as potentially proposing to accomplish some of the work through independent contractors, which perhaps may be seen as "subcontracts," therefore making DFAR 252.244-7001 more prominent. However, Symvionics is not a court or Board case. Edited January 28, 2019 by Neil Roberts add language at end of next to last sentence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.