Two Bids - One Technically Unacceptable

A source selection under FAR Part 15 (Subpart 15.3)?

Or, a fair opportunity consideration under FAR Part 16 (Subpart 16.5)?

Or something else?

You must answer the above question before anyone here can help you. Your first sentence has an error somewhere -- it has to be one or the other--

I'm doing a tradeoff/best value source selection under FAR Part 16 15...

I'm doing a tradeoff/best value source selection fair opportunity consideration under FAR Part 16...

Sorry, under Part 15, but competing solely between multiple award contract holders with IDIQs.

Really? You're doing a FAR Subpart 16.5 fair opportunity consideration for a task order under multiple-award contracts, but you're using FAR Subpart 15.3 procedures? FAR 16.505( b )( 1 )( ii ) clearly says the policies in FAR Subpart 15.3 do not apply to the ordering process. I wouldn't allow that approach in my office.

But, to answer your question -- let's just say this is a pure FAR Part 15 source selection.

• You evaluate both offers (already done).
• You find one unacceptable and one acceptable (already done)
• Do you want to open discussions? Maybe you want to give the unacceptable offeror a chance to become acceptable? Or maybe you want to make the acceptable offeror better? Or both?
  • If so, you establish a competitive range -- a range of both offerors if you want to give the unacceptable offeror a chance to become acceptable, or a range of one offeror if you only want to make the acceptable offeror better.
  • You notify each offeror of its inclusion in or exclusion from the competitive range, and you conduct discussions with the offeror(s) in the competitive range.
• Or, if you don't want to open discussions, but the acceptable offeror you received is awardable as-is, then you do not establish a competitive range. You simply select it as the best value offeror and make award without discussions.

You do not change from a tradeoff approach to a LPTA approach.

Oh, and you don't have two bids (as suggested in the title) -- you have two offers.

FAR Subpart 15.3 tells you everything you need to know about competitive range and discussions. FAR Subpart 15.5 tells you everything you need to know about notices to unsuccesful offerors.

All this said, though, you really should not be using FAR Subpart 15.3 source selection procedures in a FAR Subpart 16.5 fair opportunity consideration. Stay in your lane.

Your first sentence has an error somewhere -- it has to be one or the other--

I'm doing a tradeoff/best value source selection fair opportunity consideration under FAR Part 16...

Why is "fair opportunity consideration" the correct term for describing use of the fair opportunity procedures at FAR 16.505? The term does not appear anywhere in Title 48 of the CFR.

The FAR does not provide a formal name for fair opportunity considerations. I use that term descriptively.

See FAR 16.505( b )( 1 )( i ):

The contracting officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for each order...

Hence, fair opportunity consideration.

I don't want to call it a source selection -- when people do that, they get confused like the original poster and think that FAR Subpart 15.3, which is titled "Source Selection," applies. By calling it a fair opportunity consideration, I and others in my office can better tell the difference and stay in the right lane.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

I think the poster may be talking about awarding a single source IDIQ task order under a multiple award IDIQ parent contract.

With regards to FAR Part 16, the FAR only allows the agency to award an IDIQ to a single offeror upon determining that there is a single source that is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price (see FAR 16.504©(1)(ii)(D)). Otherwise you have to make multiple awards per FAR 16.504©. So, for a award of a single award IDIQ task order to go forward this determination has to be made.

But, the best value FAR Part 15 evaluation process described in the solicitation also needs to be completed – I think that is what the poster is asking. What comes first? FAR Part 15 or 16, or they happen at the same time, are they independent or dependent on each other? If there is only one acceptable offeror per FAR Part 16, does the evaluation then flip to a LPTA from a best value?

The problem is the single source IDIQ task order under a multiple award IDIQ parent contract. How do you do that?

Incompetent COs have entirely ruined the fair opportunity process. They were given a gift by FASA, and they rejected it. By doing so they turned a process in which offerors were to "be considered" (passive) into one in which they were required to actively compete, a la FAR Part 15, with all the attendant costs for both government and industry. Too sad. Too bad.

Whynot, this is a task order or delivery order competition under an existing ("parent") ID/IQ. I think that ji pretty well outlined the process.

I agree with ji as well. I think the problem the poster is having is similar to what is described in the following case.

/legacy/a/ca613a7b5ec68efe.pdf

On the one hand, the RFP did require the agency to make a best value determination. On the other hand, the FAR nonetheless allowed the agency to award to a single offeror only upon determining that there is a single source that is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price. Here, the record demonstrates that the agency used a best value determination when it decided to award the contract to a single offeror. That is, the agency selected Concur because it was technically superior and priced lower than CWT. Such determination is inconsistent with FAR 16.504©(1)(ii)(D).

No. Never. No way, no how. You do not convert from tradeoff to LPTA in what is intended to be a competitive FAR Subpart 15.3 source selection once you determine that there is only one acceptable offer and the other offer is unacceptable. No.

DO THE TRADEOFF

You simply do the tradeoff and make award to the offer that provides the best value (presumably, the acceptable offer). Or, if the interests of the Government are served by giving the unacceptable offer a chance to become acceptable, or if you want to make the acceptable offer better, establish a competitive range and open discussions.

Example:

. OFFER A OFFER B

Factor 1 unacceptable satisfactory

Factor 2 excellent satisfactory

Factor 3 satisfactory satisfactory

Factor 4 price $1.1 Million $1.4 Million

It is my decision that OFFER B provides the best value. I am unwilling to accept the risk associated with the unacceptable rating, and the benefits of OFFER B in Factor 1 easily merit the additional cost of OFFER B. I note OFFER A's excellent rating for Factor 2, but the benefits in that factor do not offset the risk associated with Factor 1, et cetera... /s/ SSA

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU'RE NOW IN A NON-COMPETITIVE SITUATION

Or, instead of doing the tradeoff, you might acknowledge that you're in a non-competitive situation. This will depend on the reason that the other offer is unacceptable. Is it unacceptable because a factor was rated as unacceptable as not meeting the Government's needs in an acceptable manner? Or is it unacceptable because the offer was fundamentally flawed and represents a material deviation from the solicitation such that it cannot be evaluated at all? These are two entirely different situations. If the first scenario is true (a factor was rated as unacceptable as not meeting the Government's needs in an acceptable manner), you probably won't know until during or after the evaluation and you could remedy that by opening discussions (doing so is usually discretionary on the Government's part) -- do the tradeoff. But if the second scenario is true (the offer was fundamentally flawed and represents a significant non-compliance with or material deviation from the solicitation such that the offer cannot be evaluated at all), maybe you're in a non-competitive situation now. In such a case, you do not convert from tradeoff to LPTA. No. Never. No way, no how. You simply acknowledge that you have only one offer than are considering for award. You do not need to "evaluate" it using the factors established in the solicitation, but you may if you want to -- if so, you don't need to assign ratings. It is error to think of this as an LPTA approach -- an LPTA approach (like a tradeoff approach) only works in a competitive environment. But you do need to make sure the offer meets the Government's needs and the price is reasonable and so forth, and you may negotiate the price or other terms without invoking the FAR Subpart 15.3 procedures. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SCENARIOS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

Excellent post.

Do you think that for an IDIQ task order under an IDIQ contract that your best value trade off process would meet the exception requirements at FAR 16.504(c )(1)(ii)(D)) to make a single award?

You simply do the tradeoff and make award to the offer that provides the best value (presumably, the acceptable offer)... Or, instead of doing the tradeoff, you might acknowledge that you're in a non-competitive situation.

You cannot do a tradeoff between an acceptable proposal and an unacceptable proposal, because an unacceptable proposal is ineligible for award. In order to do a tradeoff you first would have to get the offeror whose proposal was unacceptable to make it acceptable through discussions and a proposal revision.

And you are not in a "non-competitive situation" just because only one proposal is acceptable. You are simply in a situation in which the competition produced only one acceptable proposal.

I am interpreting "unacceptable" to mean legally unacceptable, i.e., legally ineligible for award. I am not using unacceptable as a factor rating under which a proposal could be considered poor (bad, undesirable, crummy) but still legally acceptable.

Finally, I disagree with this:

But if the second scenario is true (the offer was fundamentally flawed and represents a significant non-compliance with or material deviation from the solicitation such that the offer cannot be evaluated at all), maybe you're in a non-competitive situation now... You simply acknowledge that you have only one offer than are considering for award. You do not need to "evaluate" it using the factors established in the solicitation, but you may if you want to -- if so, you don't need to assign ratings.

How do you know that the one remaining offeror is acceptable if you do not use the criterial in the solicitation?

Whynot.

FAR 16.504 is wholly irrelevant, if we're talking about a task order under an IDIQ contract. FAR 16.504 only applies to acquisitions for parent IDIQ contracts, either multiple-award or single-award. Nothing in FAR 16.504 applies to competitive or non-competitive acquisitions for task orders under already-awarded IDIQ contracts.

Vern,

Just because the technical evaluation team thinks an offer is unacceptable under a particular factor doesn't mean the SSA will agree with that assessment. So if we're in the first scenario I described (a factor was rated as unacceptable as not meeting the Government's needs in an acceptable manner), I am very comfortable proceeding with the tradeoff. If the unacceptable rating sticks, then that offer cannot be awarded and therefore cannot provide the best value -- but that offer can be discussed in the decision document. But one won't know this until after the unacceptable rating has been accepted by the SSA, which usually won't occur until after the evaluation is complete.

I'm sure the original poster would like to hear your advice on how to proceed when only one acceptable proposal is received in what was supposed to be a competitive acquisition.

Just because the technical evaluation team thinks an offer is unacceptable under a particular factor doesn't mean the SSA will agree with that assessment. So if we're in the first scenario I described (a factor was rated as unacceptable as not meeting the Government's needs in an acceptable manner), I am very comfortable proceeding with the tradeoff. If the unacceptable rating sticks, then that offer cannot be awarded and therefore cannot provide the best value -- but that offer can be discussed in the decision document. But one won't know this until after the unacceptable rating has been accepted by the SSA, which usually won't occur until after the evaluation is complete.

Sorry, ji, but that's all wrong. You cannot tradeoff something that is acceptable against something that is unacceptable. You cannot give up some acceptable, no matter what the price, to get some unacceptable at a lower price. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "unacceptable." Maybe you mean something different than I think you mean. Can an unacceptable offer be eligible for award? If so, what does unacceptable mean?

I'm sure the original poster would like to hear your advice on how to proceed when only one acceptable proposal is received in what was supposed to be a competitive acquisition.

If only one acceptable proposal is received and the price is fair and reasonable you can make an award, conduct discussions to make an unacceptable proposal acceptable, or you can amend or cancel the solicitation if the solicitation was unduly restrictive or otherwise materially flawed.

Well that would certainly resolve a lot of my issues – can you provide more support for your position that an IDIQ Task Order is not an IDIQ Contract or not subject to FAR Part 16..

Whose position are you talking about? I never said any of those things. Are you talking to ji20874?

Well that would certainly resolve a lot of my issues – can you provide more support for your position that an IDIQ Task Order is not an IDIQ Contract or not subject to FAR Part 16..

Whynot - ji said that 16.504 applies to the award of the ID/IQ "parent" contract. In this case, there are already existing ID/IQ contract holders (pool members) who are competing for a task or delivery order.

He is saying that the subject of the original post - task or delivery orders - fall under 16.505 - Ordering, not 16.504

I don't think that he said that "an IDIQ Task Order is not an IDIQ Contract or not subject to FAR Part 16".

I agree with Vern. There is no "trade-off" applicable when you only have one technically acceptable offer to consider for award. It is a fundamental principle of government procurement* that all offerors must be treated on an equal basis to prepare their proposals - the requirements must generally be the same for all proposers.

YES - one should, in my opinion, decide if conducting discussions would be in the government's best interest. For instance, consider if it is probable that the lower priced offer could be made technically acceptable; if you think that you could get better pricing from the higher priced, technically acceptable offeror; if you could get better pricing and/or better performance from one or both of the firms; if the higher priced proposal exceeds the government's needs and you could save money by negotiating out excesses; etc. If so, then discussions are probably warranted.

*Citations available.

ji20874:

In Post #4 you wrote: "Oh, and you don't have two bids (as suggested in the title) -- you have two offers."

What's the difference between a bid and an offer? Did you mean You don't have two bids, you have two proposals?

Vern,

Yes, we have to differentiate between those offers that are unacceptable upon submission and should be rejected even before the technical evaluation begins, and those whose unacceptability is discerned as a result of the evaluation process based on the judgment of the technical evaluators. In the former, it is the offer itself that is unacceptable. In the latter, it is perhaps a single factor that receives an unacceptable rating based on one or more deficiencies uncovered during the evaluation. I see these as different situations on a continuum, both relying on the same word "unacceptable."

I would edit your response in one way--

If only one acceptable proposal is received and the price is fair and reasonable you can make an award, conduct discussions to make an unacceptable proposal acceptable and/or to make the acceptable proposal better, or you can amend or cancel the solicitation if the solicitation was unduly restrictive or otherwise materially flawed.

I agree with the above (as edited) for the situation where the unacceptable offer is in the first category (offer is unacceptable upon submission and should be rejected even before the technical evaluation begins) -- for example, the solicitation calls for a sedan and invites a technical proposal for a tradeoff to select the best-value sedan, but the unacceptable offer proposes a pick-up truck -- reject the proposal as unacceptable, and proceed as written above with negotiations (if desired) and award to the other acceptable offer, with no need to establish a competitive range.

I disagree with the above for the situation where the unacceptability is discerned only through the subjective evaluation process -- for example, the solicitation calls for a sedan and the offeror proposes a sedan, but that offer is rated as unacceptable because the technical evaluators have a significant concern about the driver's ability to operate the vehicle safely because of placement of all the knobs and dials and so forth -- in this case, if one wants to negotiate the other acceptable offer, establishment of a competitive range is necessary -- or, if award without discussions will occur, the selecting official must consider the unacceptable offer.

But to the point of the original posting -- the contracting officer does either of the above without converting from a tradeoff process to an LPTA process.

Vern,

You already know the answer. Let me just say that all bids are offers, but not all offers are bids.

Using the word "bid" to describe an offer submitted in a source selection under FAR Subpart 15.3 or a fair opportunity consideration under FAR Subpart 16.5 is inartful.

I don't need you to lecture me about bids and offers and the proper use of the word bid. You need to be more careful in what you say. I gave you a chance to clarify your remark and in thanks I get patronizing didacticism. Save it for the choir.

ji20874, you said:

Yes, we have to differentiate between those offers that are unacceptable upon submission and should be rejected even before the technical evaluation begins, and those whose unnacceptability is discerned as a result of the evaluation process based on the judgment of the technical evaluators. In the former, it is the offer itself that is unacceptable. In the latter, it is perhaps a single factor that receives an unacceptable rating based on one or more deficiencies uncovered during the evaluation. I see these as different situations on a continuum, both relying on the same word "unacceptable."

You're not being clear about what you mean by unacceptable.

To me, unacceptable means ineligible for award. The reason why a proposal is unacceptable has no bearing upon its status. Whether observed to be unacceptable by the CO upon receipt or later found to be unacceptable by evaluators, it is ineligible for award unless made acceptable by revision. Being unacceptable, such a proposal cannot be the basis for any tradeoff decision. You can't tradeoff any part of an acceptable proposal for some part of an unacceptable proposal and thus find the unacceptable proposal to be a better value. The unacceptable proposal is out of the game unless the offeror is giving a chance to revise its proposal and eliminate the deficiency.

I think you are making a distinction between unacceptability as legal ineligibility due to a material deficiency in an offer and as an expression of relative worth that has no bearing on eligibility. If so, such use of unacceptable as an evaluation rating is unwise, as I have discussed in this forum in the past. It can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. A subjective finding by evaluators that a proposal is unacceptable because it does not satisfy a requirement in the specification would, unless found to be in error, render the proposal legally unacceptable, not just not as good as the other proposal.

All I was trying to do was to query the forum on how to award an IDIQ within an IDIQ. I speculated that the original poster’s solicitation that they were evaluating was for a task order that was itself an IDIQ. Given the requirements of FAR 16, such an IDIQ must be awarded to multiple contractors unless only one contractor is acceptable. My query was how to reconcile their being only one acceptable contractor with the solicitation’s best value evaluation requirement. I cited a case that highlighted the problem with such a reconciliation – or at least one way not to do it.

I sense that the forum did not understand that I was talking about a task order that was also an IDIQ not just a task order under an IDIQ.

...such use of unacceptable as an evaluation rating is unwise...

I agree, Vern -- that's why I don't like to use UNACCEPTABLE as an evaluation rating. If the offer in question is unacceptable for legal ineligibility due to a material deficiency, then all the advice you gave fits. But if the offer is unacceptable as an expression of relative worth that has no bearing on eligibility, well, that's where I was trying to be helpful.

By the way, I'm sorry for offending you with my answer to your question about bids and offers -- that wasn't my question. I made my statement about bids in a context of stay in your lane for the benefit of the original poster, and I thought that was evident. Use of the term "bid" in the thread title could be confusing to those of us who use standard terminology, as well as to those who are trying to learn the ropes. I wish I knew how you expected me to answer your question.

For DOD source selections, "unacceptable" is one of the mandatory, standard ratings for a deficient proposal and is not awardable. The rating term would be clearly defined in the evaluation criteria..There should be no misunderstanding or confusion about the definition of a rating if they and the other terms used are clearly defined.

"UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable."

I believe that a "deficiency" is also defined in the DoD's Standardized SS Procedures. If not, it should be.

For task order competitions, this rating might not be used. However, if it is used, the government should clearly define it and the other rating terms in the task order competition documents.

By the way, I'm sorry for offending you with my answer to your question about bids and offers....

No problem. I was more annoyed than offended. I had expected you to say Thanks, that's what I meant.

In the DOD system, "unacceptable" is not merely an expression of relative worth. An unacceptable proposal is one that fails to satisfy requirements and is therefore legally ineligible for award.

Deficiency is somewhat more problematical.It is defined in FAR 15.001 as meaning: "a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level."

A material failure to meet a requirement would make a proposal legally ineligible. I'm not sure about a combination of significant weaknesses.

I understand this is less than a timely post but in reading I concluded on two thoughts....

I do not get the references to either FAR Part 15 or 16 to address the OPS question. Shouldn't the real question be what does the parent IDIQ say? And if silent yes the guidance of 15 or 16 might help but are not prescriptive of the process the process that must be used.

To Whynot....you might look at the thread found here in WIFCON titled "can you issue an IDIQ off of of an IDIQ"

Thanks here is the thread.

/threads/6131-can-you-issue-an-idiq-off-of-an-idiq\

Good stuff, doesn't quite hit my question of how to make a single award IDIQ task order.

Whynot,

How do you place orders under an IDIQ task order?

Carl:

The thread veered into FAR Part 15 beginning with Post #4. For a while ji20874, Joel and I were talking about that.

I would imagine that for multiple award IDIQs you give fair opportunity and the award task order to a particular contractor - and if you have a single source IDIQ you just issue an order to the IDIQ contractor. My question to you is under a multiple award IDIQ how to you award an IDIQ Task Order to a single contractor?

Criminy. That last post is disheartening.

Does government work at all?

We shouldn't give the government one more thing to do. It does not have the capability.

Not. One. More. Thing.

Whynot,

My question to you is under a multiple award IDIQ how to you award an IDIQ Task Order to a single contractor?

See FAR 16.505( b )( 2 )( i ), Exceptions to the Fair Opportunity Process, and take your pick from ( A ), ( B ), ( C ), or ( D ).

Whynot,

Lets see how this works in an oversimplified example. Lets say you have four multiple award IDIQ contracts for various training classes. You have a requirement for one of the classes to be given multple times but at this point you know four dates/locations but do not know exactly how many more or where. So you would write a requirement (SOW, PWS, whatever) that states the known classes and approximately how many additional and provide it to the contractor(s) as a task order request (TOR). Then you would use fair opportunity to provide the TOR to one or more of the contractors awarded the IDIQ contracts. This could be by allowing all of them to compete for the task order or by justifying one of the execeptions to fair opportunity. Placing an order against an order is problematic so I would just use modifications to order up the maximum that was stated in the original TOR. Does this reflect what you are trying to do? If not, what did you mean?

I remember back in the good old days where none of this was necessary. Contractors could not protest the fair opportunity decisions of the CO so we could just award the known requirement and then award the additional work the same way when another requirement came up. It only took a few days to get a new proposal and award a new task order. Quick and easy is why IDIQ contracts were created. But people messed up on some huge delivery orders and the contractors earned protest rights. Now every requirement takes as long as a full and open competition and is just as complicated due to legal, Small business office, OIG, GAO and others all getting involved to ensure "fair opportunity". This usually means allowing all to propose. So what do we do - we combine the known and unknown requirements into one task order so that we don't have to go through that task order award pain again.

What Whynot wants to know is this:

Suppose that an agency wanted to issue a task order under a multiple-award task order contract that will itself include an IDIQ ordering feature, so that the agency will be able to issue orders under the task order. Such an order would be what Whynot called an "IDIQ task order." In order to do that would the agency have to comply with the justification and documentation rule in FAR 16.504( c )(1)(ii)(D) concerning single-award task order contracts? Or, instead, could it give the multiple-award contractors a fair opportunity to be considered and then issue the task order to a single contractor?

His question is prompted by what happened in CW Government Travel, Inc. v. U.S., 110 Fed. Cl. 462 (2013). In that bid protest COFC case GSA conducted a FAR Part 15 source selection for award of a multiple-award task order contract then used its evaluation of the proposals to support award of a single-award contract. The COFC ruled that GSA's procedure did not comply with 16.504( c )(1)(ii)(D).

My answer to Whynot's question is that an agency cannot issue a single-award "IDIQ task order" under a multiple-award task order contract by conducting a fair opportunity process. Neither can an agency can use one of the fair opportunity exceptions in FAR 16.505( b )(2) to do so. I disagree with the process that Boof described in the first paragraph of Post #39.

I believe that an "IDIQ task order" under a multiple-award IDIQ contract would itself be a task order contract as defined by FAR 16.501-1, and so I believe that an agency would have to comply with FAR 16.504( c )(1)(ii)(D) in order to issue such an order to a single contractor.

Vern,

What do you find wrong about my paragraph one. I agree making the orders via Mod is unusual but I don't think we could ever get the contract writing system to award a delivery order against another delivery order. I was also not considering the order to exceed $103M.

Boof, I don't know what the value of the order would be, and I don't care about the contract writing system. If you're going to issue a task order that has an IDIQ ordering clause in it, then I think you have to comply with FAR 16.504( c )(2)(ii)(D) as required. That's it.

Frankly, I think an "IDIQ task order" is harebrained. I don't know why anyone needs to write orders against an order unless it's to bypass the prescribed fair opportunity process. It's that kind of scheming and gaming that led to the mess you described in your second paragraph. Some people think that kind of thing is "innovative." But what it is is foolish.

If there is a multiple award task order contract for training classes, then every contractor should be able to conduct any class that might be ordered under the contract. When you need a class or series of classes, issue an order. The idea of using exceptions and writing task order mods "so that we don't have to go through that task order award pain again" just doesn't appeal to me. We should design our task order process to be less painful, instead. What happens when you engage in scheming and gaming is that you get a legislative or regulatory response that's designed to stop the practice, which only adds more burdens.

Finally, unless the contract expressly provides for it, the issuance of "IDIQ task orders" could prompt breach of contract claims from the other contractors, who could argue that the practice breaches the contractual obligation to provide fair opportunities for the award of each task order.

It would seem to me that one could issue a task order to teach a series of classes, using a unit-priced line item with separate travel cost line item and perhaps a line item for student materials (per student). Why would you need to issue separate task orders?

There are ways to manage per class costs without having to issue separate task orders.

Joel:

In Boof's scenario, the number of classes needed is not fully know at the time of order issuance. Issuing the "IDIQ task order" to one company and then placing further orders against it is supposed to eliminate the need to go through the fair opportunity process in the future.

I would not use any gimmicks in an attempt to defeat the fair opportunity provisions of FASA. I have linked my last effort before retirement. Before I walked into the IRS procurement office, I had studied both the law and the legislative intent of FASA's fair opportunity process. I remember discussing the issues with the contracting officer. He said he had one opinion and I had another. Of course, my opinion was backed by law and his wasn't. To retire, I had to sell the content of the report to GAO's General Counsel--including the person who signs bid protests. I knew General Counsel would bite and they did. I retired in September 2003 and General Counsel finally issued it in July 2004. I wrote much of the attachment before I left as part of an auditing division and General Counsel issued it simply because they felt strongly about the issue. The auditing division didn't understand the issue once I left so it had to be done this way. In the first footnote, you will see that General Counsel had to make some contacts for themselves. That's part of their process of getting comfortable. You will not see me mentioned anywhere because it is a General Counsel product. If the senior attorney mentioned ever sees this, I apologize for initially acting as an arrogant ass but that was part of my getting comfortable process. Now, I'm just an old ass. You will find a link to this report under the appropriate Wifcon.com bid protest section.

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 – Fair opportunity procedures under multiple award task order contracts.