When an agency restricts a solicitation to a single brand-name, the agency must appropriately justify its decision, even where the solicitation is competed among holders of a governmentwide acquisition contract.
In a recent case, the GAO sustained a protest, holding that an agency violated the FAR by failing to properly justify its brand-name restriction.
Continue readingUnder FAR Part 15 negotiated procurements, an agency must give notice and an opportunity to request a debriefing to offerors eliminated from the competitive range. But the notice requirement does not apply for task and delivery order procurements under FAR Part 16 where FAR Part 15 is inapplicable.
A recent GAO decision highlights this distinction.
An agency did not act improperly by allowing for oral final proposal revisions, rather than permitting offerors to submit written FPRs following discussions.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that–at least in the context of a task order awarded under FAR 16.505–an agency could validly accept oral revisions to offerors’ proposals.