I received a RFP procurement that was transferred to me for award evaluation after the close of the solicitation. Offerors were received. The previous producer was not notified of the solicitation and did not provide an offer.

I planned to open discussion to remove a 50% option in the original solicitation. In addition, the delivery schedule possibly needs to be changed because I am concerned that the delivery requirement cannot be met by new producers.

Can I open discussion, set a new closing date and allow new offeror(s) to submit their initial offer(s) and let the original offerors revise their offers to reflect the changes in the solicitation?

Is there any way that I can add new offeror(s) to the original offerors for this procurement?

I heard of the term, "Initial & Revised Offers." Is this one method that I can use to include new offerors?

s: Do you work for an agency subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation? If so, may I suggest, for starters, that you read FAR Part 15, beginning with FAR 15.206 and continuing with 15.207, 15.208, 15.306 and 15.307.

K,

Thank you for your response. I have read FAR 15, and it does not address what I am asking. I want to know if there is any legal procedure to include offerors after the the solicitation close date. I have heard that this was done, but do not know where the authorization located at.

Best regards,
jv

s
I am not aware of any "safe" approach to do what you're asking. Reducing the requirements by 1/3 (deleting the 50% option) and revising the delivery schedule would seem to justify a cancellation and resolicitiation per 15.206(e).

15.206(e) "(e) If, in the judgment of the contracting officer, based on market research or otherwise, an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated, so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them, the contracting officer shall cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition. "

When you think about it, to bring a new offeror in would require allowing sufficient time for the new offeror to prepare a proposal. So the time required to issue a new solicitation may be approximately the same time frame as needed to modify and attempt to bring a new offeror in - but a whole lot safer from protest.

J,

Thank you for your response. This can be done, but can possibly lead to a possible protest as I think the changes does not fulfill the requirement, “an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated,” as you have stated in FAR 15.206(e).

T,

It's interesting that you think it justify a cancellation and resolicitation per FAR 15.206(e). If you open discussion, the initial offerors will be able to revise their offers according to the new requirement. By cancelling the solicitation, you will be eliminating the chance they have in revising their initial proposal.

If they see this cancelled, and a new solicitation issued with the changes in a week, they can protest that they can meet the revise requirement from the initial solicitation. It seems risky, but is an option.

Steve, if after an RFP closes you amend the solicitation and make a change to the requirement of the magnitude you suggested, you are increasing your liability for a protest and you would like loose.

Let's say that you go ahead and cancel the solicitation and re-issue it with the reduced modified and you get a protest against the cancellation of the initial RFP. GAO gives fairly broad leeway when it comes to cancelling a requirement. The fact that the initial solicitation no longer reflected the government's need is textbook case of why a RFP might be cancelled. You may still get a protest, but as long as your agency counsel has half a pulse, you should win.

Question: "I want to know if there is any legal procedure to include offerors after the the solicitation close date."

Answer: No, there is no such legal procedure for a procurement conducted under FAR Part 15. Did you see one in FAR Part 15? If you think that the solicitation does not reflect the government's needs or that it is fatally flawed you must cancel the solicitation and resolicit. See FAR 15.206(e). See too, FAR 15.305(b).

And quit worrying about protests. It's unprofessional. Do what you have to do and let the chips fall where they may. If you get a protest, deal with it.

s
I agree with civ_1102. I'd rather deal with a protest by the existing offerors and have them challenge your judgment that the change was so significant as to warrant cancellation and resolicitation than to issue a solicitation amendment which includes permitting new offerors to enter the competition 'late' and have to deal with a protest on those grounds. I think the argument that you have reduced the requirements by 1/3 and have established a new delivery schedule/requirement would easily pass the 15.206(e) threshold. Further, para (e)begins by stating, "If, in the judgment of the contracting officer, based on market research or otherwise,...".

If you want to try the amendment approach, I'd suggest you have a good precedent in your hip pocket, and might even cite it in the amendment to attempt to stave off a protest.

V
Why is worrying about protests "unprofessional", particularly if one is "walking on the edge"?

If I am trying to satisfy a customer's requirement and have two options, one meeting the customer's time frame but "risky" from a protest perspective, and one "safe" but will take longer and possibly make the customer wait, it is incumbent on me to not only consider the potential for a protest, but weigh the probability of a protest, the probability of success if I receive a protest and also consider the time which may get consumed with a protest (even if I'm confident I can win).

Now if my options are to reasonably apply a FAR provision/process or do something 'peculiar' (which in the situation cited really doesn't gain me anything), then I will follow the FAR. In that case, I agree with you, you simply apply the FAR process and deal with any protest if/when it comes.

We can't live in fear of protests, but since protests are supposed to be industry's legitimate means of contesting a solicitation action by the Government, it is not something which should be ignored or not considered either.

T:

No one is walking on any edge, there is no risk to take, and there is no reason to worry about protests.

This was a Contracting 101 question. There is no provision in FAR Part 15 for accepting new proposals after the original closing date unless the solicitation is cancelled and a new solicitation issued. Procedures for amending solicitations are spelled out in FAR 15.206 and they are very clear. This was a no-brainer.

Vern
In the instant case, I agree totally with you. I (mis)read your "quit worrying about protests" comment as a generalized statement, thus my comment.

Bob has just posted a new GAO decision on a protest concerning an agency's cancellation of a solicitation after closing. He also displays a long list of related decisions.

There is a lot of good reading there.

See here: http://www.wifcon.com/pd15_206e.htm.

Based upon my reading of the decisions, I would say that s could not cancel the RFP if 2 of the offers he received were acceptable (i.e. met the delivery schedule). If no offer, or one offer, met the schedule, I believe he could cancel.

V, if you are the same person heard about, you are really are bold and straight forward. Sorry if this question is too easy for you as the federal government do go to you for comments. I have 1 year experience and was told that I can get expert comments here.

Protest is a concern for me because it can cost me months of non-productive times, which can mean life and death for my customers. My failure to plan in this aspect does not justify the cost of a life.

I think it is professional to take protest and other aspects into consideration in procurement. As a public servant, I look at different aspects to include the usage of tax payer’s money before I make decisions.

Since there is no legal method of including other offerors, and cancelling is not time efficient and cannot be fully justifiable before the GAO, I have concluded that I will have to open discussion and work with my current offerors.

Thank you all for your help as the comments are very helpful.

S, I wonder what prompted your agency's decision that the requirement needed to be altered after the RFP had closed. I, by the way, share tomr's sentiments that, in general terms, it is not productive to obsess over protests. Think of it like risk-it is something we can manage, but not totally control. In any case, it occurs to me that if the requirements represent "life and death" issues for your customers, then in the future, it would behoove your agency's acquisition personnel to ensure that adequete acquisition planning takes place so that this type of situation does not happen again-just food for thought.

Let me explain why I said that "worrying" about protests is unprofessional: One cannot predict the likelihood of receiving a protest. The probability of a protest in any given case is entirely subjective. I have gotten them when I least expected them and not gotten them when I thought they were a certainty. If a course of action is legal and otherwise sound, then one should weigh that course of action against other such courses, including inaction, and determine which is in the best interest of the government. If two courses of action are legal, and one is in the better interest of the government than the other, then one should take it, without worrying about the likelihood of a protest. If one gets a protest there are many things that one can do to cope with it, including reversing course, if that seems appropriate, or other corrective action, or a CICA override.

You never said why you wanted to obtain additional offers. If you had a good reason to do so, and if it was the right thing to do, then there may be ways in which you could cancel and resolicit on an expedited basis without excessive delay. But you inquired about only one alternative: "Can I open discussion, set a new closing date and allow new offeror(s) to submit their initial offer(s) and let the original offerors revise their offers to reflect the changes in the solicitation?"

You might have asked: I am buying X. I have already received proposals, but I have to modify the solicitation. I would like to get additional offers because... , but I only have Y days in which to make the award. Is there any way I can cancel and resolicit in within that period of time?

However, these days I answer only the question asked. It's up to posters to ask the right questions. Maybe some of the eager responders out there can make some suggestions to you.

Hold on, S; in the case cited by N, the Comptroller General said that: "However, based on our review of HHS’s actions here, we conclude that the cancellation of this solicitation was pretextual." Not surprising, therefore, that the agency lost the protest. It seems to me that you have a much better and more valid reason for canceling and re-soliciting, given the changes you're contemplating; and, if you also benefit by increasing the competition, so much the better.

N
I don't follow your logic that cancellation would be improper simply because two offers proposed to meet the delivery schedule. The initial comment was "I planned to open discussion to remove a 50% option in the original solicitation. In addition, the delivery schedule possibly needs to be changed because I am concerned that the delivery requirement cannot be met by new producers."

I read the cases (at least the highlights and several cases) and it appears as long as the agency's reasons are not pretextual, GAO is going to support the CO's "judgment". (And what "pretext" could be alleged in this case in any event?) Clearly as the CO I could contend a 1/3 decrease in my total requirements "could" improve competition, and the post indicated that steven was "concerned" over meeting the new producers meeting the delivery schedule. So, if I reduce the quantity of work and revise the delivery schedule (I assume an extension) couldn't I also argue that cancellation would potentially enhance competition? Also, although not stated, it does not appear any prices have been revealed at this point, so how have the existing offerors been prejudiced? Under either scenario, they will have to revise their prices (or be provided the opportunity to revise prices) based on the deletion of the option provision, as well as the potential for extension of the delivery schedule.

You said s could not cancel if the two offerors proposed to meet the existing schedule and he concluded cancellation cannot be "fully justified before the GAO".....what am I missing here? A substantial change in quantity, a schedule change (assuming the customer's can live with that) and the potential for increased competition as a result of those changes sure seems to meet the GAO's criteria for cancellation to me.

I wonder how any agency could issue a solicitation for contining services currently being performed by a contractor and the current contractor isn't aware the solicitation was on the street. However, if the solicitation was issued under another NAICS or described so differently that the incumbent wouldn't be aware of it, you have an ethical responsibility to allow the incumbent to submit a proposal. I would simply amend the solicitation to include a new proposal submittal date and state in the amendment that the proposal submittal date is being extended to allow the incumbent to submit a proposal as he was erroniously excluded from participation. Sometimes, looking for specific permission to do something that makes sense in the exact words of the FAR is a fruitless exercise. Use your best business judgment if nothing in the FAR prohibits you from doing what makes sense to you. Prices from the other offerors that already submitted proposals haven't been revealed. Those offerors will have an opportunity to revise their proposals knowing the incumbent will now be bidding. Ever wonder if the incumbent isn't interested in bidding on the project? Why not ask him.

T,

I looked at s's initial post that listed delivery schedule and options as the bases for cancellation.

Given that, if the solicitation elicited acceptable, competitive offers that can meet the delivery schedule, then I believe it would be difficult to defend against a protest.

The Government expressed its requirement in the original RFP; it received multiple offers demonstrating competition and creating the presumption of fair and reasonable pricing. I do not consider the option to be a significant matter as I do not believe it would affect the competition.

If in fact the Government's requirement increased or decreased by one third during the base period, that would be a different story.

nk
Ok, people are entitled to different opinions - and we don't know all the facts, e.g., what the solicitation was for which could impact the decision on how to proceed.

Personally, based on what we know I could go either way - cancel/resolicit or conduct discussions. I believe I could cancel and could successfully argue my case if protested - but not sure what the basis of the protest could/would be.

An interesting case would be what if discussions were conducted, an amendment issued changing the delivery schedule and deleting the option and then a protest came from an outside company who initially chose not to bid, protesting that this was a changed solicitation and that while the company could not bid against the initial delivery schedule and quantity - they would have bid with the lesser quantity (no option quantity) and longer delivery schedule....particularly if they were a small business......I guess then GAO would have to decide if 15.206(e) should have been applied.

After some further thought, I am not sure that cancelling the solicitation would necessarily make the most sense. Here is why. First, stevenchang, stated that two issues were realized after the closing of the RFP: that, i.e., the Government no longer wanted/needed an option period in the contract. The second issue was concern, "that the delivery requirement cannot be met by new producers."

With regard to the issue of the option, don't sweat it-just leave it in. As everyone learned in their CON 101, an option is OPTIONAL. If a choice was between re-issuing a solicitation, or awarding a contract with an option period that the Government no longer intends to need, one of those choices involves significantly less administrative expense than the other, guess which?

Regarding the second issue, I am assuming by the poster's terminology (use of "RFP"), that the solicitation was conducted under FAR 15. So what do we do, boys and girls, when we get in proposals that have significant weaknesess and deficincies? We conduct negotiations to attempt to get those problems corrected.

So before the Government goes through the significant administrative expense of conducting a second full and open competition (expensive for the Government and even more so to offerors who have to spend overhead dollars writing proposals), would it not be more efficient to first attempt, through discussions, to correct the offerors' weaknesses? And only if that failed would we re-solicit.....that's what I would do at least. It is, after all, entirely possible that the extant offerors actually are capabable of meeting the original delivery requirements, given the chance to correct their proposal in discussions.

Based upon stevenchang's second post, I believe the real issue is inclusion of the incumbent.

Well, assuming this was full and open, the incumbant was free to look on FBO for the announcement. Further, one would assume that a contractor knows that its contract is ending soon and should be on the lookout for the follow-on work. For a FAR 15 competition, there is certainly no requirement to give special attention to any one specific offeror to make sure they know of the requirement. You can do that, but it is not required. Maybe the contractor just did not want to compete. Once the award has been made, perhaps the poster should do some market research by contacting the incumbant of the extant contract and find out why they did not submit an offer.

Too late to help Steven Chang, but here is another option:

I once submitted a proposal,
the closing date passed,
and 2 days later another Amendment was issued to extend the closing date for a couple more days.
The date change was the only change in the Amendment.

..............

My guess is that someone called the Contract Specialist after the due date had passed
and said they would have a proposal to them in a couple days,
if they would just extend the due date.

After assessing the number of offers received,
and possibly even after looking at the offers received,
the Government decided they would like to have another offer to consider.

.................

What's to stop them from doing that ?

What was there for me to protest ?

I don't think it was fair to me or anyone else who got an offer in on time,
but without some inside information from the folks who made that decision,
I had nothing.

CORRECTION:

I went to http://www.wifcon.com/pd15_206a.htm#107-155,
where Bob has cataloged Protest Decisions on FAR 15.206a.

As of July 2007, the "late is late" rule is back in effect,
despite what is written in the January 2007 Nash & Cibinic Report.

Scroll down to the USCFC Decisions; the Plaintiff is "Geo-SEIS Helicopters."

So you can no longer simply extend the due date after it has passed.

b:

You said: "So you can no longer simply extend the due date after it has passed."

Well, it's not that simple. One judge on the Court of Federal Claims has said that you cannot do it. We don't know that the other judges will agree. They are not always consistent. Furthermore, the GAO has not yet changed its position. One judge on the Court of Federal Claims disagrees with the GAO, but that court does not review GAO protest decisions and cannot overrule the GAO.

So here is where we stand: If you extend the closing date after it has passed you risk a protest. If the protest goes to the GAO, the GAO's long-standing position is that you can do it to enhance competition. There is a risk that the GAO will reverse itself in light of the court's decision, but we don't know that it will. If the protest goes to the court, the court seems likely to find for the protester, but we don't know that it will.

Here is what Prof. Nash has to say about Geo-Seis in the November issue of The Nash & Cibinic Report:

"We do have one question about the court's interpretation of the late proposal rule and that is whether the following 'guiding principle' in FAR 1.102 has any relevance to this issue:

'(d) The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer's needs. In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority.'

"This was written to emphasize that COs have lots of discretion to follow good business practices. Thus, this 'guiding principle' would allow extending a proposal closing date after receipt of a late proposal unless that course of conduct was 'prohibited' by the FAR. In Geo-Seis Helicopters, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that the word 'late' and the phrase 'will not be considered' had the plain meaning that the regulation was mandatory. But it is not clear to us that this is the only reading of these provisions. Arguably, the use of the word 'will' connotes a different meaning from the normal mandatory word 'shall.' However, this argument was not discussed by the court-- probably because it was not made by the Government.

"This leaves us with a highly unsatisfactory situation--a split between the GAO and one judge on the Court of Federal Claims. The probable result is that COs will not extend closing dates but will strictly enforce the late proposal rule--forgoing award of the contract to the offeror proposing the best value that has encountered some uncontrollable and short delay in submitting a proposal or a final proposal revision. The FAR Council seems to have accomplished a double whammy--it has bred lots of litigation and encouraged a poor procurement practice. The one thing we can be sure of is that the Council will not revisit the late proposal rule. It is like the little old man driving slowly down the middle of the street wondering why all of the cars are crashing around him."

V,

You leave unanswered two vital questions:
What is your fee; and
Where do I remit it ?

This post of yours is golden.
I just learned in the last 4 hours of a post hoc extension of a solicitation to which I had submitted a timely, if weak, offer.
Absent your sage input, I might have thought to threaten to involve the Comptroller General.
Now I see that the $250 filing fee at USCFC may be the better bargain than a free dismissal at GAO.

I confess that, until I read this post, I thought that the Decisions of Federal Courts were binding on GAO Bid Protest Decisions, en banc or not.

The GEO-Seis Decision goes into some detail as to why it disagrees with Professor Nash, quoting him at length and dissecting his arguments. Now, I’m not sharp enough to weigh who makes the better arguments, but I did figure one thing out – there may be something personal between the two dominant personalities clashing here. This, too, is a revelation to me.

I’ll bet that I could learn from you just by watching you sneeze. It’s a blessing to have you post here.

V/R


p.s.: What about the matter of fairness ? I think it is unfair to me if I go to the trouble of getting my offer in on time, and then lose to someone who couldn’t be bothered with the lateness rule.
What’s to stop a CO from choosing to extend this courtesy of accepting late submissions from favored vendors, and then choosing to deny this same courtesy to me ?
Particularly in instances, as in my current case, where the CO declines to post an amendment to fbo, after posting the initial solicitation there ?
.

Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:01 pm:

---

B:

It's just V,

Judge Lettow and Prof. Nash have nothing against each other. The judge simply disargeed with Ralph's thinking about the "late is late" rule. Lawyers disagree all the time. It's business, not personal.

Also, the filing fee is just the beginning of what a court case will cost you. That's just what you pay the court. You have to pay a lawyer, too.

Finally, one does not "appeal" a GAO decision to the Court of Federal Claims, but if one does not like a GAO decision he or she may simply file suit with the court and the court will make a decision. If it disagrees with the GAO it will rule differently. The court's ruling is binding on the agency. This does not technically "overrule" the GAO, but the result is the same for all intents and purposes. Generally, the court will not rule differently if it believes the GAO's decision was rational. Sometimes the court asks the GAO for an advisory opinion.

B,

you ask a question and provide your response: "What about the matter of fairness ? I think it is unfair to me if I go to the trouble of getting my offer in on time, and then lose to someone who couldn’t be bothered with the lateness rule."

I understand why you, a competitor, look to contracting officer to enforce "fairness rules" contained in the FAR and interpreted by GAO or the Court. But, you are also a taxpayer. Does the contracting officer have an obligation to be fair to you and other taxpayers? Does the contracting officer have an obligation to get the best deal possible even if, in doing so, the contracting officer postpones the closing date? Even after that date has passed?

n
You raise a couple interesting questions.

From my viewpoint, the CO unequivocally has a responsibility to be "fair" to all offerors (FAR 1-602-2(b)). I'm not sure there is an obligation to be "fair" to the taxpayer. I believe the CO's obligation to the taxpayer is to follow the law and regulations (1-602-1(b))and to obtain "fair and reasonable prices" (15.402(a)).

Does that mean that a CO must never postpone a closing date (before or after the closing date)? My answer would have to be "no". I believe that decision must be situationally dependent - like reopening discussions/negotiations after receiving final revised offers. If some unfairness or flaw in the process has occurred, then corrective action must be taken to protect the offerors and the process. In spite of the Court's decision, given the right set of circumstances, I would reopen the closing date and document the reason(s) therefore. But absent some very compelling reason, I would not.

Does the CO have an obligation to the taxpayer to get the "best deal possible"? I don't believe that is the CO's obligation or duty. Auctioning, coercion and other unscrupulous practices would help obtain the "best deal possible" - but are not authorized. I believe the CO's duty is to obtain only a "fair and reasonable price" while complying with the processes established by regulation, law and GAO/Court decisions. A fair and reasonable price, as defined by 15.405(b) is a price that is "fair and reasonable to both the Government and the contractor."

Unfortunately, as Prof Nash indicated, CO's have been placed in a tenuous position between the GAO's and the Court's decisions.

t,

I am not sure our positions are not cheek by jowl. Let me pose a situation for consideration so we can see if we are presenting a single face to industry, so to speak.

A contracting officer is recompeting a contract. The incumbent has done a great job at a fair price. On the closing date, 6 offers have arrived. At 2 minutes before the solicitation closing time the contracting officer receives a frantic call from the incumbent who pleads for a 3 day extension of the closing date.

Should the contracting officer grant it?

Suppose another contractor requested the extension?

What should the contracting officer do?

nk,

The answer to that question would hinge upon whether or not the incumbent knew of the solicitiation or IFB opportunity when it was issued. If they were informed and simply were negligent in their time management, then my answer to them would be no.

If they had not been informed (If that was a requirement), or if the government issued the soliciation with the wrong NAICS codes, then maybe it should extend the closing date by making a correction to that NAICS code, as it may have affected more than just the incumbent.

If the incumbent communicated a good reason for the delay such as a very recent economy change, a key factor in the proposal being changed by outside elements, or something that would likely affect ALL of the proposals, then I would probably issue the extension and inform ALL of the contractor to review their proposals with that information in mind.

It would come down to the KO to make a judgement. Given your scenario, there is no black and white answer without the needed information to make a judgement.

A good KO would use that judgement, knowledge of the FAR, previous rulings, office policies and his or her ability to gain the needed information to make a decision. A bad KO would simply decide based however he or she felt about "fair" at that moment, and may or may not choose correctly.

d,

For me, there is a no hand-wringing issue. I would extend because it is in the interest of my customer and taxpayer to keep the incumbent in the game.

I agree with n. The purpose of the regulatory and statutory process we follow is to ensure a good deal for the taxpapers. Things like common closing dates for receipt of offers are there so that the system isn't gamed.

When you get down to it, you have an imcumbent who is performing well at a fair price. It's in everyone's interest to keep them playing in the competition. Their performance is a known factor.

As someone stated earlier (possiblt in another thread), I also think that the "late is late" rule is a bit counter-intuitive for negotiated procurements. Part of the contracting by negotiation process is allowing the Contracting Officer to make utilize his or her 24 semester hours worth of business knowledge and exercise good judgement. If we allow the subjective determination of awardees (as opposed to the objective low-price calculus of sealed bidding), why can't we trust CO's to use good judgement with regard to late proposals?

At my first contracting position, I once had an offeror walk in the door of the agency literally 2 minutes after the closing time of an RFP. The offeror requested a receipt, which I gladly provided (the receipt noted the late time). The offeror asked if the proposal was late and I told them that it was. Not 20 minutes later did I have some whinny young political hack staffer from the offeror's congressional office on the Hill literally screaming at me and cussing me out for following the rules (the offeror had quickly traveled from the agency to the Hill). I felt pretty bad for the offeror, but there was nothing that could be done-late is late!!

Best regards,
jv

V,

In your post on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 11:01 pm:

You state:

"Finally, one does not "appeal" a GAO decision to the Court of Federal Claims, but if one does not like a GAO decision he or she may simply file suit with the court and the court will make a decision."

When you say "file suit with the court", which court are you referring to.

We were just told by GAO when asked "what are our appeal rights if we object to your decision", that this is the first time anyone had asked that question. She did not answer our question except to tell us to ask our lawyer.

Go figure!

b:

See Cibinic and Nash, Formation of Government Contracts, 3d ed., pp. 1583-1588. According to the authors:

"There is no specified appeals procedure for Comptroller General decisions because they are not in the nature of judicial decisions. If a protester is dissatisfied with a Comptroller General decision, an action may be brought in either district court or the Court of Federal Claims, assuming that all requirements for jurisdiction are met, 31 U.S.C. § 3556."

31 USC § 3556 provides in part as follows:

"This subchapter does not give the Comptroller General exclusive jurisdiction over protests, and nothing contained in this subchapter shall affect the right of any interested party to file a protest with the contracting agency or to file an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In any such action based on a procurement or proposed procurement with respect to which a protest has been filed under this subchapter, the reports required by sections 3553 (b)(2) and 3554 (e)(1) of this title with respect to such procurement or proposed procurement and any decision or recommendation of the Comptroller General under this subchapter with respect to such procurement or proposed procurement shall be considered to be part of the agency record subject to review."

If you lose a protest before the GAO you can file a suit with the Court of Federal Claims. (You can no longer file suit in a district court.) The suit is not an appeal.The GAO's decision will be part of the agency record that is reviewed by the court. Decisions of the Court of Federal Claims are not binding on the GAO, and the two forums disagree on some matters.

V,

Thank you so much.

The congressional thing pissed me off-not because a congressperson's office was helping their constituint , which is one of their jobs, but because of how it was handled. Every agency within the Executive Branch has some sort of legislative liason office. Congressional inquiries are NOT supposed to go directly from a staffer to the executive branch workerbee.