Contractors Challenge More Government Bid Awards
Contractors challenged bid awards to competitors significantly more last year, in part because the landscape for government work is expected to become less fruitful in the coming years. But those challenges seem to be having less effect.
That's the conclusion of an interesting Robert Brodsky piece in Government Executive.
Brodsky's story drew on numbers released last month by the GAO, which handles protests of contracts awarded by federal agencies.
"Last year's figures were the highest since fiscal 1997, when firms lodged 1,707 protests, according to Michael Golden, managing associate general counsel of GAO's procurement law division," the story said.
"The high number reflects several government-wide and private sector trends," said Tom Papson, a partner in the government contracting division of the law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge.
"Contract spending, particularly for defense projects, has continued to increase while the economy as a whole has weakened significantly. A successful protest, Papson said, can therefore have both short- and long-term consequences.
"'Many companies are looking down the road and seeing tough times ahead,' he said."
By Robert O'Harrow |
January 9, 2009; 10:17 AM ET
competition
Previous: Dataveillance |
Next: Report: Stimulus Bill Will be Good for Contractors
Posted by: BrianX9 | January 16, 2009 5:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
.
A dismissed protest doesn't mean the protestor lost.
2 weeks ago, in an unpublished decision, GAO dismissed a protest because the Army agreed that they had acted improperly and would take corrective action.
The protestor was the low bidder who should have been awarded a contract, but the contract instead went to an acquaintance of the Government technical expert who bid a much higher price.
The Army is now forced to recompete this requirement, and this time whoever wins may now actually get the contract, even if they don't pay baksheesh to a government official.
I'd say that was a win for good government, even if there wasn't a public acknowledgment by GAO of official misconduct.
The downside is that the crook who abused his position as an Army contracting official to award the contract improperly to his buddy will not suffer any consequences, but that will be on the conscience of Army lawyers (snark.)
.