The Law Concerning Performance Contracts - Research Paper Example

?Running head:  CONTRACT PERFORMANCE   Contract Performance Insert              Insert Grade Insert 23 November   Protest involving Bidder's Responsibility and Contract Performance. Southern industrial laundry d/b/a Alabama laundries and linen supply, 21st. April 1978 This report involves a protest due to allegations that award was granted to irresponsible bidder who resulted to yielding unsatisfactory results, therefore calling for termination of the contract. The United States army issued an invitation for the laundry cleaning bid in 1977. Two bids were received, one by the Alabama Laundry and Linen supply and the other by Tennessee Valley Laundry and dry cleaners; however, the Tennessee bid was cheaper. Alabama Laundry management filed a protest, which alleged that Tennessee Laundry was inexperienced, and therefore it should have been declared non-responsible. The law concerning performance contracts required that a bid be given to a responsible contractor; who should have achieved a satisfactory performance in his previous contracts. Alabama Laundry further alleged that Tennessee Laundry’s past performance was unsatisfactory; therefore, the contract should have been terminated. Thirdly, Tennessee Laundry was accused of violating the law by not inspecting the site of performance. Therefore, the protestor argued that the award granted to Tennessee should be granted to Alabama Laundry. However, these allegations were found baseless without evidence; Tennessee Laundry was therefore given a go ahead in their contract and the protest was dismissed, since Tennessee Laundry was found to be responsible. Regulatory provisions (FAR) pertaining to contract performance in general The federal acquisition regulation (FAR) provides the requirements pertaining to contract performance; bidders have the right to compete for the contract equally. This is referred to as sealed bidding acquisition, whereby, the lowest bidder and responsive bidder get the award. FAR law prohibits any restrictions that limit the number of bidders. Once the bids are read, those that do not meet the requirements are rejected; nevertheless, FAR requires the contractor to have sufficient resources to perform the contract. Secondly, the contractor must be capable of complying with the performance schedule. Thirdly, the company should have a history of satisfactory performance from its previous jobs. Business Ethics are also considered an important factor. Further, FAR requires the contractor to have quality and effective skills. Therefore, if the bidder meets all the above requirements, he is at an advantage of receiving an award (Vacketta, 1999 Para 4). In addition, apart from sealed bidding, a contract may be awarded through negotiation, allowing flexibility to determining the winning bidder. Here, the contracting officer conducts negotiations with offerors, therefore evaluating the best bidder for the contract. This process ensures that the best is obtained from a pool of bidders. However, the law prohibits the contracting officer from conducting favors on some bidders. FAR 52.249-2 indicates that, termination for convenience permits the government to terminate a contract at any time, without a reason, but only when in the government’s best interest (Vacketta, 1999). In addition, FAR 15.304 (c) (3) (i) require the evaluation of past performance on the contractors, however, in the lowest price factor, evaluation of past performance is not necessary (Naval air welfare centre, 2009). The selection of a bidder may be beyond responsiveness and responsibility; nevertheless, price is a very important factor in choosing the right bidder. Cite and explain the regulatory provisions (FAR) that relate to the particular contract performance issue of the report you chose. The protest on bidder’s responsibility and contact performance involves an appeal by one contractor in protest of the selected bidder’s award. Vacketta (1999) explains that an appeal to the United States court by a contractor should be filed within one year after the winning bidder is awarded the contract. The government issues an answer to the contractor’s complaint within 60 days. However, for a filed protest to sail through, it must include name and address of the protester, contract number, and relevant documents and supporting document; these documents are addressed to the contracting officer. However, if the filed allegations are not relevant, as the case in the 1978 report, the protest is dismissed, and the winning bidder is given a go ahead to accomplish the task. Nevertheless, the selected contractor must be responsible and have sufficient skills required in conducting the contract (Vacketta, 1999). Moreover, FAR 15.306 (d) (3) prohibits the contracting officer to favor any bidding party; he should not reveal an offeror’s solution and price without permission, neither can he disclose the individuals providing the past performance experience. Therefore, the contracting officer is expected to uphold confidentiality and be reliable. A protest can be filed by the interested party but it should be in writing, accompanied by evidence in terms of documents, which explain the relevance of the protest (Subpart 33.1, N.d). Offerors who have been treated unfairly have the freedom to challenge the government’s actions. According to the 1978 report of Protest involving Bidder's Responsibility and Contract Performance (1978), it is rather clear that a bid protest is a legal mechanism that gives the interested party a chance to clear their doubts on the outcome of the government contract award. The protestor is usually aggrieved by the government’s action pertaining to the award; however, the protester must have sufficient evidence regarding any irregularities conducted. Therefore, it goes without saying that bid protests are relevant, as they portrays governments image in ensuring bidders’ satisfaction. Bid protests are of two types; pre-award protests, which challenges the government solicitation, and post award protests, which challenge the agency’s decision on who was granted the award. Nevertheless, these protests can be adjudicated at the soliciting government agency, court of federal claims, or at the government accountability office. Therefore, the 1978 report fosters a fair and just bidding process for the bidders by practicing the FAR laws that allow bid protest, which clears the inferor’s doubts. Nevertheless, it is important for the soliciting agencies to uphold the law and ensure its employees, especially the contracting officer, abide to the law; this in return will continue to foster fairness in the bidding process. Conclusion Protest involving Bidder's Responsibility and Contract Performance report is enlightening; this report involves two firms, which were involved in the bidding process, however, the Tennessee Laundry worn the bid. As a result, the Alabama Laundry filed a post award protest, differing on the effectiveness of the rival firm, and claiming that it does not have enough experience, and therefore it is not suitable for the contract. However, upon reviewing the presented case, there is no sufficient evidence to terminate the contract; the protest is however found irrelevant. FAR laws give the interested parties a chance to protest if they are not satisfied with their results. Therefore, bid protests are necessary in ensuring a fair and just bidding process. However, FAR laws aim at issuing the tender is awarded to the cheapest and responsive bidder, who meets all the required qualification that will result to quality work. References Naval air welfare centre. (2009). The Evaluation of Past Performance in Source Selections. Retrieved from http://nawctsd.navair.navy.mil/Resources/Library/Acqguide/pastperf.htm. Protest involving Bidder's Responsibility and Contract Performance. (1978). Retrieved from: http://archive.gao.gov/lglpdf41/105844.pdf. Subpart 33.1. (N.D). Protests. Retrieved from https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2033_1.html#wp1088680. Vacketta, C. (2011). Find law; Federal Government Contract Overview. Retrieved from http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241470.html. Read More