ContractLaw7415

Agreed Vern on all fronts. The FAR Council should have included the phrase "one or more" instead of "group" to alleviate confusion and ambiguity. This could lead to more challenges at GAO or CoFC on the language itself and both venues will have to draw the line in the sand in either a) relying on the precedential value as established in cases such as S2 Analytical Solutions, LLC and possibly making a clear interpretation as to what the FAR Council intended when doing the RFO re-write (if addressed in a protest), or b) go against standing precedent, relying on the new RFO 15.204, and turning the contracting world upside down on what it means to establish a competitive range related to the number of offerors. Getting my popcorn ready...