|
Canada-ON-BERWICK Azienda Directories
|
Azienda News:
- GAO says that a protester must timely show it was prejudiced . . .
Much like schoolyard basketball, bid protests feature a “no harm, no foul” rule: unless an offeror can credibly allege that it was prejudiced by a flawed evaluation, GAO won’t sustain a protest Establishing prejudice can be tricky, depending on the type of evaluation at issue
- Decision - U. S. Government Accountability Office (U. S. GAO)
Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is denied because the record shows that the alleged evaluation error did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester
- No Harm, No Foul: GAO Reaffirms That Prejudice Is Everything
GAO denied the protest, ruling that: Page Limits Were Waived, but No Prejudice Shown: GAO acknowledged that Cognito’s proposal exceeded the 50-page limit and that the agency effectively waived that requirement
- GAO Says “No Prejudice” in Challenged Past Performance Requirements . . .
As a result, GAO concluded that K K was unable to demonstrate competitive prejudice—an essential element of every viable protest As an aside, GAO also noted that, even if K K could demonstrate that it was prejudiced, GAO nevertheless would have denied the protest
- Bid Protest Minute – Protest Underscores Importance of Prejudice, Past . . .
On May 7, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed a protest challenging the terms of a solicitation for being unduly restrictive The protest highlights three important
- #GovConThoughts: Competitive Prejudice in Bid Protests and Post-Protest . . .
The GAO bid protest decision in IDEMIA National Security Solutions, LLC, B-421418,B-421418 2 (May 1, 2023) is informative for at least two reasons (there are others): (1) even if the agency's evaluation is flawed, protesters must still demonstrate competitive prejudice because of that error; and (2) GAO will allow post-protest explanations to
- GAO Protest Prejudice Requirement: Is It Time To Rethink . . . - SmallGovCon
Over the years, GAO case law has established that a protester is not an “interested party” if the protester would not have had a reasonable chance of receiving award, but for the agency’s actions Under most circumstances, the “no harm no foul” prejudice rule makes sense
- STANDING – RIGHT TO PROTEST - GAO Bid Protest Attorneys
GAO Bid Protest Rule 21(a)(1) provides that only an interested party may protest a federal procurement That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract
- CONTRACT AWARD PROTEST RULINGS - DAU
Every year the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports to Con- gress on its most prevalent reasons for sustaining protests GAO sustains a protest when it agrees with the protester that the agency soliciting the pro-curement violated a law or regulation in a prejudicial way
- Bid Protests | U. S. GAO - U. S. Government Accountability Office (U. S. GAO)
A bid protest is a challenge to the terms of a solicitation or the award of a federal contract For more than 100 years, GAO has provided an objective, independent, and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes concerning the awards of federal contracts
|
|