posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58
I see what you're saying - pretty much any major project has absurd politics involved and I agree.
To be more clear I just mean with regards to the protest; I'm surprised Boeing went at it the way they did. The GAO always leaves the evaluation up
to the agency's discretion; by citing IPlus, Inc. case, and the Urban-Meridian Joint Venture case in their decision memo the GAO is reiterating that a
protestor (nor the GAO for that matter) can't re-define, re-characterize, or re-interpret the meaning of solicitation language. This is why the GAO
also cited the Alliance Technical Services case - it resorts back to the notion of "plain reading" of the solicitation, rather than as GAO puts it
"Boeing's strained interpretation of the definition which requires the introduction of additional language"...
Put simply - there is no legal basis or case law foundation for the argument that "close government monitoring" is an unacceptable risk mitigation
basis. This judgment is left to the evaluating agency / source selection authority.
Now, that being said, I'm still reading through this, but with the RFP and evaluation sub-factors being redacted / classified, I wouldn't be able to
provide an alternative basis of protest - but I would reiterate that I am surprised Boeing's legal team went the way they did.
Any competent Contracting Officer would tell you that the GAO will only look to make sure the evaluation factors in the solicitation line up with the
documented evaluation of offers, and that no factors were considered that weren't explicitly stated on the solicitation.
I could also give you myriad details of contracts that have had problems resolved efficiently as a result of a solid QASP (quality assurance
surveillance plan) but would caveat that with the agreement that major DOD projects are on a completely different scale.
Still reading through the protest decision though...