Inspection Svcs vs. Repair Work

Do you have a clause in the contract preventing them from the follow-on work?

Have you studied FAR 9.5, including the basic principles, as well as the rest? Do you think that there might be a conflict of interest from a firm that determined what work to include in a repair contract?

Have you studied FAR 9.5, including the basic principles, as well as the rest? Do you think that there might be a conflict of interest from a firm that determined what work to include in a repair contract?

Are you asking whether it is "illegal" or if it would be an improper conflict of interest to allow the firm to compete for the repair contract if it inspected the tank and wrote a report describing the condition and identified items requiring repair?

Do you think that there would be an unfair bidding advantage? Will the water tank be empty and accessible to all bidders to closely examine? Will they be able to see the same conditions as the original inspection firm? Any other considerations?

Sorry for the duplicate post.

See an example Decision at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/402324.htm

Matter of: Energy Systems Group

File: B-402324

Date: February 26, 2010

W. Bruce Shirk, Esq., Jessica M. Madon, Esq., and Townsend L. Bourne, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester.

Kenneth G. Wilson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging potential offeror's exclusion from competition on the basis of an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's preparation of a report that was used to prepare a statement of work for a competitive solicitation created a biased ground rules OCI.

DECISION

Energy Systems Group (ESG), of Hampton Roads, Virginia, protests its exclusion from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-09--5083, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for energy conservation and efficiency design-build services at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. ESG contends that the Navy unreasonably concluded that the protester's preparation of a study that was used by the agency to develop the statement of work (SOW) for the RFP created a biased ground rules organization conflict of interest (OCI) that required its exclusion from the competition.

We deny the protest.

Contracting Officer should explore methods of mitigating conflicts of interest rather than excluding offerors. Providing the inspection report and its source to all is at least one method. Also providing all offerors where feasible an opportunity to inspect. Also the nature of the report should be considered.

Per previous responses, suggest you carefully examine Part 9 and document basis of any decision to exclude an offeror who was not previously notified of such an exclusion.

Contracting Officer should explore methods of mitigating conflicts of interest rather than excluding offerors. Providing the inspection report and its source to all is at least one method. Also providing all offerors where feasible an opportunity to inspect. Also the nature of the report should be considered.

Per previous responses, suggest you carefully examine Part 9 and document basis of any decision to exclude an offeror who was not previously notified of such an exclusion.

I agree - provide the report; drain the tank and allow bidders to inspect for themselves.

Contracting Officer should explore methods of mitigating conflicts of interest rather than excluding offerors. Providing the inspection report and its source to all is at least one method. Also providing all offerors where feasible an opportunity to inspect. Also the nature of the report should be considered.

Definately. One doesn't want to eliminate perhaps a well qualified offeror.