Sam101 Posted April 9, 2021 Report Share Posted April 9, 2021 (edited) Hello, I was reading case Global Language Center B-413503.8 and I'm wondering if I'm understanding the agency's error correctly regarding the "post-final proposal revision (post-FPR) discussions only with awardee" ground for sustaining the protest. If the agency wanted to properly reopen discussions with only one offeror should the agency have simply just eliminated all the remaining offerors other than Salient? In other words, could the agency have sent all offerors other than Salient a letter saying that they are no longer in the competitive range and then that would have been proper for the agency to only reopen discussions with Salient? Also, am I interpreting this case correctly when I think it means that a weakness which is also a "the offeror didn't conform to the solicitation requirements" type of weakness that it is still OK to eliminate all other offerors from the completive range after the evaluation of final proposal revisions if the Government believes that this offeror is the best value and just wants to negotiate with this one offeror? Or is the fact that "the offeror didn't conform to the solicitation requirements" somehow make it a special type of situation where it's impossible to eliminate all other offerors from the competitive range and proceed to only negotiate with this one offeror to allow them to fix their one last weakness and then safely make the award? Edited April 9, 2021 by Sam101 Corrected "form" to "from" in last sentence and spelled competitive correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vern Edwards Posted April 9, 2021 Report Share Posted April 9, 2021 @Sam101I am answering only your first question. 1 hour ago, Sam101 said: I'm wondering if I'm understanding the agency's error correctly regarding the "post-final proposal revision (post-FPR) discussions only with awardee" ground for sustaining the protest. If the agency wanted to properly reopen discussions with only one offeror should the agency have simply just eliminated all the remaining offerors other than Salient? In other words, could the agency have sent all offerors other than Salient a letter saying that they are no longer in the competitive range and then that would have been proper for the agency to only reopen discussions with Salient? Although the agency claimed that it had sought only clarification from Salient after receipt of final proposal revisions, the GAO ruled that the agency had, in fact, reopened discussions with Salient. When it did that it should have made a new competitive range decision and reopened discussions with all still within the competitive range. If supportable under FAR 15.306(c), the agency could have eliminated all but one from the competitive range in the second go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts