What if solicitation says it is FAR Part 12 but nothing else?
Started by govt2310 · Jan 24, 2017 · 4 replies
- gOriginal post
govt2310
Jan 24, 2017 · 9y ago
I remember a GAO decision that came out years ago where the agency (I think it was the Army or the Air Force) issued a solicitation under FAR Part 12, but did not specify whether it was in conjunction with FAR 13, 14, or 15. A vendor protested (I believe it was a post-award protest, but I may be wrong) that it was reasonable to assume that it was in conjunction with FAR Part 15. The agency treated it as in conjunction with FAR Part 13. The agency made missteps in the solicitation that made it unclear whether the solicitation went with FAR Par t3/14/15. GAO sustained the protest, finding that, if the solicitation fails to specify whether the FAR Part 12 acquisition is in conjunction with FAR Part 13, 14, or 15, then it is reasonable for the potential offerors to assume that it is in conjunction with FAR Part 15. Does anyone remember this GAO decision and what the B number was?
- C
C Culham
Jan 24, 2017 · 9y ago
Crap shoot...but I tried my version of an internet search and found the below....sorry no link but what I found it referenced to sounds a lot like what you are looking for.
See Dubinsky, 43 Fed. Cl. at 254-60
- M
Moderator
Jan 24, 2017 · 9y ago
Is this it, a COFC opinion, from 1999: Dubinsky.
- G
Guest Vern Edwards
Jan 25, 2017 · 9y ago
Take a look at United Marine International LLC, GAO Dec. B-281512, 99-1 CPD ¶ 44, Feb. 22, 1999.
- g
govt2310
Feb 6, 2017 · 9y ago
Ah yes, thank you all. The United Marine Int'l LLC GAO decision was what I was thinking of. The Meir Dubinsky COFC decision is also interesting. Thanks again!