|
FAR 6.102: Use of competitive procedures |
|
Comptroller General - Key Excerpts |
|
With respect to the second reverse
auction, the VA argues that it properly limited competition to
FSS vendors. In its response, FitNet argues only that any
preference for using the FSS program “is both injudicious and
unfair.” Protester’s Response, at 1. We disagree. The procedures
established for the FSS program satisfy the requirement for full
and open competition. 41 U.S.C. sect. 259(b)(3) (2000); FAR
sect. 6.102(d)(3); Tarheel Specialties, Inc., B-298197,
B-298197.2, July 17, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 140 at 3. Thus,
limiting the pool of competition to vendors holding FSS
contracts is legally permissible, even if an individual
protester may be unable to compete because it does not hold an
FSS contract. See Information Ventures, Inc., B‑299422,
B‑299422.2, May 1, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 88 at 3 (decision to use
FSS program was not evidence of bias against a protester that
lacked an FSS contract). (FitNet
Purchasing Alliance, B-310031, September 21, 2007) (pdf) |
|
|
Comptroller
General - Listing of Decisions |
|
For
the Government |
For
the Protester |
|
FitNet
Purchasing Alliance, B-310031, September 21, 2007 (pdf) |
|
|
U.
S. Court of Federal Claims - Key Excerpts |
|
|
|
U.
S. Court of Federal Claims - Listing of Decisions |
|
For
the Government |
For
the Protester |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
