Tinton Falls Lodging Reality vs Unites States DMC - Research Paper Example

LAW al Affiliation) Tinton Falls Lodging Reality vs Unites s DMC management services Tinton Falls Lodging Reality, LLC, plaintiff-appareling v Unites States DMC management services, LLC is a case that was presented to the court of appeal of United States. In the appeal of the US court of central rights, the final judgment that was made entered into the errand of the government in the claim. The case was that which addressed the contract entered between the parties. The choice of the case was made with the consideration of the complexities that were involved and the decision that was made in favor of the government. The choice is made due to adjustments that have made to the federal law. It is a current case. The contract case was with favor of the government with the consideration that there was a rational basis for the determination that the primary and important requirements of the solicitation. The solicitation was the management and the coordination of transportation and lodging services. The case was decided on September 2nd 2015 and was between Tinton Falls Lodging Reality, LLC that entered into a contract in favor of the government and management services after the motions that they had that the administrative record was enough to make them enter into a business set-aside by the government. The case was chosen due to the recent issues that have arisen in contract and with consideration that the case is recent. The case framework The area of law that is applied to the case is the law of contract. The parties that yarer involved in the case are the government and supplies organization. The case can be considered a federal case as the body involved is a federal body. The state of the case is in the appellate stage. The laws that are applied in the case are the federal laws the laws makes the court to construct a statutory law. The subject matter in the case is on government procurements and the legal issue is preemption of the laws of contract. The party that prevails according to the opinion of the court is the government who offered the contract. The legal role that the court creates in the situation is the rule of contracts, mainly awarding of contracts. Background of the case The United States department on Navy on February 19 2013 issued a contract number N3220513-R-6005. This solicitation involved the coordination and management of lodging and transportation for civil service marines. The group at the time was completing the training that they had at a training center in Freehold. The contract was issued by MSC under the North America Industrial Classification system. The main requirement of the solicitation was to provide enough rooms at lodging facilities in the area around the training center. The contract also needed transportation from the lodging facilities to the training center. The contractor also was needed to provide the main hotel and two others or back up hotels. Half of those that attended the training were housed at the primary hotel. There was clarity made that MSC would be responsible only for the actual rooms that were used each night to house those in the training. The transport was also to be offered to all those in training from the hotels to training and other duties. There was however, coordination that was needed between the contractor and MSC to determine the trips that were used by the trainees each says. In addition, other services were to be forwarded to MSC by the contractor such as the illegal acts by the trainees and providing emergency medical services. The evaluation of the bidders was done with the capability that each of them had in satisfying the specification of the contracts. MSC found the bidders technical and decided to award the contract to any of the bidders. The bidders were each given an opportunity and MCs found that the best they could take was Mali, Inc. there were protests that were filed with the bidders with Tinton Falls Lodging Reality, LLC filing their protests to MSC contracting officer. They claimed that DMC intended to make a subcontract to the lodging services, which accounted for 80% of contract value. Tinton Falls Lodging Reality, LLC appealed that the area officer made errors in its decisions. The protests that were made brought it clear that the contraction offer had the belief that the remaining bidders other than DMC were not small businesses under the application code. The area officer agreed to this claiming that the small determination was due to the affiliation with Hotel Unlimited and Mali. Expert commentary There are factors that are considered in awarding contracts that should have been undertaken by MSC. The first step involved is the evaluation of the bids. The bids in these aspects are evaluated with the criteria that are stated in the invitation for tender or request for quotation (Blickstein & Smith, 2012). The bids are sometimes evaluated according to the supplier’s own terms. When there is more than one bidder that qualifies for the contract, it takes the person giving the contract to the legal service that goes through it and then are able to propose for revising the contract specifications. In awarding the contract, the person giving the contract is not bound to accept the lowest-priced bid but looks at the bid that satisfies the organization and gives the most economically advantageous bid. All those hade bid for the contract will be then notified in writing on the person that have been awarded the contract and other results of the contract. for those contracts that have been valued over 100,000 dollars, a period of 10 days is given to notify those that are not successful for the contract and the those that are successful signing the contract (Blickstein & Smith, 2012). The consultant in a contract is selected with the consideration of contract procedures and the roles. The appointments that are made are also expected to be confirmed in formal communication mainly through writing including the addressed scope of the services needed and that to provided (Comba & Treumer, n.d.). The consultants are also expected to be briefed on the need to observe the contract rules and procedures. Opinion and discussion on the case The main argument by Tinton Falls was that SBA lacked a rational basis that they use for determining the basic and primary requirement for solicitation. The bidder thought that the main values that were to be taken into consideration were the package of lodging and transportation. In the case, contracting officers that are chosen to be the consulting officers are expected to exercise discretion upon a wide range of issues that arise leading to confronting of the processes of procurement. In this aspect, the decisions that are made on procurement invoke a highly respectful balanced review. In the standards, there should be the consideration of actions by the agency unless the challenger is in the action to prove the agency (Fisher, 2014). The government on the other hand does not dispute the fat that Tinton Falls had the standing to pursue the bid protest, DCM contends that Tinton Falls lacked the standing. For a stand to be established in this case, Tinton Falls must be able to show that it is an interested party and that there will be bias in awarding DMC the contract. To show the bias in the contract, Tinton Falls must also be in apposition to show that there was a chance that would have made it receive the contract award but did not receive the contract due to the alleged errors in the process of procurement (Fisher, 2014). This can be through the policy that a party has the ability to establish a substantial chance it would have received a contract through showing that it was an instance of prospective. DCM who received the contract also contends that Tinton Falls is not in a position to show bias in the contract since it does not qualify for the first requirement. DCM thinks that Tinton Falls does not qualify as a small business hence they are not in apposition to compete in a reopened bid process unless the bid is solicited on other unrestricted basis. They also claim that Tinton Falls did not intend to win the contract. This point can be supported with the consideration that DMC makes the emphasis that the area officer that was in charge disqualified Tinton Falls, Mali and their other related entities from bidding the contract since they were not considered small business concern who were not qualified to compete for the solicitation. From the situation, the main technically accepted bidder was DMC. The argument was however rejected by the argument after they found out that there was distinctive possibility that in case Tinton Falls were to succeed in proving that DMC were not eligible, the government might have been required to rebid the contract on the basis of no restriction. This situation would then place Tinton Falls in a similar position as any other party that was interested in the contract. No errors were made in the court’s decision. In a similar case that was decided between Construzion Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, it was heals that a contract bidder has a substantial chance of receiving contract and this makes the bidders have a standing chance to challenge the award of the contract. In a result of a successful bid protest, the government will be pushed in a situation to rebid the contract and the protestor still is in a position of competing for the contract in the reopened bid. From this situation, it is clear that the protest that was made by Tinton Falls in the case becomes successful; MSC will be needed to reopen the bidding process. The relationship that DMC had with the subordinate hotels also has violated the subcontractor rules and this makes the organization being in a position not to qualify as a small business concern for the activity of solicitation. This makes the contract not to have a small business that would eligibly submit a technical acceptance proposal during the first bid process. With no eligible bidder, MSC would be needed to reopen the bidding process. Conclusion Because there was a rational basis for the determination of the vital and basic requirements of the solicitation, which were the management of transportation and lodging services, the claims that are made by the court that leads to granting the government and DMC motion for judgment can be considered unpredictable. There should be the right consideration that is to be given to the case that is yet to be decided with consideration of federal laws regarding government procurement. The evidences and protests that are presented by all the bidders make all of them not operating under the law and the government should be in a situation to reopen the contract for bidding. References Blickstein, I., & Smith, G. (2012). A preliminary analysis of advance appropriations as a budgeting method for Navy ship procurements. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Comba, M., & Treumer, S. Award of contracts in EU procurements. Fisher, G. (2014). Guide on open system environment (OSE) procurements. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Richards, P. (2011). Law of contract. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman Read More