Exhibit 13 Can FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit Be Mandatory in a Solicitation_ Can I Eli
2
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
gaob407972 -
Category
Documents
-
view
20 -
download
0
description
Mr. Crosby, Latvian Connection LLC asserts that the cancellation decision lacked credibility and was a "pretext" to avoid having to make award to Latvian Connection and to "avoid resolution of the protest." Cycad Corp., B-255870, Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 253 at 5. When a procuring agency takes corrective action in response to a protest, the GAO may recommend reimbursement of protest costs if, based on the circumstances of the case, and it is clear that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(e) (2009); AAR Aircraft Servs.--Costs, B-291670.6, May 12, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 100 at 6. A protest is clearly meritorious where a reasonable agency inquiry into the protest allegations would have shown facts disclosing the absence of a defensible legal position. Core Tech Int'l Corp.--Costs, B‑400047.2, Mar. 11, 2009, 2009 CPD para. 59 at 6. The Agency could not defend the conduct of the contracting officer or her commander on solicitation W912D1-13-R-0003. Camp Arifjan Contracting Officer and it's contracting Commander, LTC Michael Scuteri, cancelled the solicitation as a pretext to avoid resolution of a protest.(197) 197/ Gonzales-McCaulley Inv. Group, Inc.,Comp. Gen. Dec. B-299936.2, 2007 CPD ¶ 192, 49 GC ¶ 451. That cancellation was made within 28 hours of the GAO's request for a Report from the Agency. LTC Colonel Scuteri acted in bad faith against Veteran Owned Business, Latvian Connection LLC for filing a protest about a solicitation, so poorly written, administered, and posted, that the only way the solicitation was going to be corrected after unresponsiveness of his contracting officers and Legal Team, was by the filing of a GAO Level Protest to illicit some professional contracting actions that resembled what is expected under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. This solicitation is an example of the level of Procurement Professionalism originating in 2013 from the 408th Contracting under the leadership of LTC Scuteri and BG Theodore C. Harrison’s that, unlike what BG Harrison states in http://www.army.mil/ecc/, The 408th located at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait are continuing to deliver substandard solicitations and this is just another in a series of unprofessional solicitations that are more designed to mislead, that to comply with FAR Part 5. However, with the continued biased assistance of the GAO, and attorneys like Mr. Crosby, Veteran Owned businesses like Latvian Connection LLC will be prejudiced and mislead by the ongoing contracting irregularities that was identified in both the Gansler report and a report on Camp Arifjan called the Fraud Triangle, by Army MAJ Amanda Flint in what is described as a case study into Procurement Integrity in Contingency Operations. This solicitation demonstrates that the fundamentals of conducting a simple solicitation still have not been achieved 4 years after the creation of the Army Contracting Command, even with that paid assistance of Contractor CACI working in the Camp Arifjan’s contracting office. On Pg 4 of the Congressional Hearing in 2011, Dr. Gansler stated: “ Writing requirements and issuing contracts, clearly these are inherently governmental functions; to acquire services is more difficult and requires high-quality, experienced government contracting and program-management personnel. “ Dr. Gansler also said “Investigation and conviction rates indicate that Army CCOs are involved in the commission of fraud by a significantly higher percentage in comparison to contracting officers in the other Services, despite being the minority of c
Transcript of Exhibit 13 Can FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit Be Mandatory in a Solicitation_ Can I Eli
Can FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit be mandatory in a solicitation? Can I eliminate offerors who DID NOT attend the site visit? [AAP]
https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=3&cgiQuestionID=113500[1/28/2013 11:01:54 AM]
Rate this answer - Was this answer helpful?:
Enter above code
Ask A Question Before submitting a question, please…
1. Use the menu on the left to review thequestions that have been previously askedand answered.
2. Search the Ask A Professor library by typingyour question into the text box at the top ofthis (or any) page and clicking the Searchbutton.
3. After all that, if you’re sure no one hasalready asked and answered your question,then…
Home > Contracting > Can FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit bemandatory in a solicitation? Can I eliminate offerors who DIDNOT attend the site visit?
Question and Answer Detail
Title - Can FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit be mandatory in a solicitation? Can I eliminateofferors who DID NOT attend the site visit?
Question -FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit will be included in the RFQ.Can this be a mandatory site visit? Can I include astatement that states A mandatory site visit is required.Only offerors who attended the site visit will be accepted.OR is this limitation competition?
Scenario - Requirement for purchase and install industrial Shelving,Industrial Cages and re-install existing shelving for 5 buildings on aUSAG in Europe. The customer has provided salient characteristics,drawings, etc. However, in order to fully understand the requirement;contractors need to view the areas to accurately price for logistics,materials, labor, etc.
Posted - 4/6/2012 3:45:00 PM
Subject Area - Contracting
Notwithstanding the qualifications requirements at FAR Subpart 9.2,federal law and acquisition policy require, with certain limited exceptions, thatcontracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competitionin soliciting offers and awarding Government contracts (see FAR Part 6). Site visits may not be made mandatory, nor a condition of quoting, as thiscould have the effect of limiting competition. You will note that the languageof FAR clause 52.237-1 informs offerors and quoters they are “urged andexpected” to inspect the site, but this is not made mandatory. Additionally, a locally authored Section H clause requiring site visitattendance arguably would also limit competition and run contrary to FARPart 6. If the requirement is of an unusual or complex nature, you might consideraddressing this concern in the evaluation criteria.
Warnings and DisclaimersDISCLAIMER: The information containedwith�in this server is not official United StatesGovernment policy and cannot be construedas official in any way.
NOTICE: Unauthorized attempts to uploadinformation or change information on thisservice are strictly prohibited and may bepunishable under the Computer Fraud andAbuse Act of 1986. All information containedwithin this server is considered publicinformation and may be distributed or copied.Anyone using this system consents tomonitoring of this use by system or securitypersonnel.
DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: With respectto documents available from this server, theUnited States Government nor any of theiremployees, makes any warranty, express orimplied, including the warranties ofmerchantability and fitness for a particularpurpose, or assumes any legal liability orresponsibility for the accuracy, completeness,or usefulness of any information, apparatus,product, or process disclosed, or representsthat its use would not infringe privately ownedrights.
DISCLAIMER OF ENDORSEMENT: Reference herein to any specific commercialproducts, process, or service by trade name,trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, doesnot necessarily constitute or imply itsendorsement, recommendation, or favoring bythe United States Government. The views andopinions of authors expresses herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the UnitedStates Government, and shall not be used foradvertising or product endorsement purposes.
Sign In
Home Contact About DAU Resources
— Browse Questions (and Answers) —
Auditing
Better Buying Power
Business
Contracting
Facilities Engineering
Industrial & Contract Property Mgmt
Information Technology
Life Cycle Logistics
Performance Based Product Spt (PBL)
Production, Quality, & Manufacturing
Program Management
Purchasing
Program Systems Engineering
Requirements Management
Science and Technology Management
Systems Engineering
Test and Evaluation
Other
Can FAR Clause 52.237-1 Site Visit be mandatory in a solicitation? Can I eliminate offerors who DID NOT attend the site visit? [AAP]
https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=3&cgiQuestionID=113500[1/28/2013 11:01:54 AM]
Privacy and Security | Contact | Feedback | Legal Notices DAU Help Desk — [email protected]
