When it comes to federal procurement, the frequency and expectation of protests has had a palpable, costly, and sometimes deleterious effect on the process and those competing in it.
Most companies now add an extra six to 12 months to their revenue projections in order to account for possible protests.
There is good reason to believe (including surveys) that “low price/technically acceptable” (LPTA) procurement strategies are, with some frequency, driven by a desire to avoid protests, since protesting such procurements is near impossible.
And, of course, there have been cases where incumbents, having lost a re-competition, submit a protest and, as a result, effectively get a contract extension while the protest is decided.
All of these represent unintended and undesirable impacts of the protest process. As a result, many have believed for some time that significant remedial action is needed. This includes the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, for the second year in a row, has included provisions in the defense authorization bill that would require losing protestors to reimburse the government for the costs of a protest when none of the plaintiff’s allegations are sustained.
Keep reading this article at: https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2017/07/25/insights-soloway-bid-protests.aspx
