Government Agency Making a Contracting Term Paper

In the 2004 decision of in the matter of ACS Government Services, Inc., another decision involving the challenge to the awarding of a contract to another business, Plaintiff argues that the awardee misrepresented information in their bid and that this misrepresentation materially affected the evaluation of the awardee's bid. In this case, the court upheld the challenge, stating that on review it was the review board's position to ensure that the evaluation of the parties bids was "reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation." Further, it is held that "a material misrepresentation in the certifications (bid) generally provides a basis for rejection of the proposal or reevaluation of the award decision." Thus, it can be said that if a challenge shows a material misrepresentation in the awardee's bid, than their challenge should be upheld.

In Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (U.S. App. 2001), the issue was the standard of review for decisions of contracting officers made under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. According to the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, "The Court of Federal Claims and district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over bid protest actions, and that the courts 'shall review the agency's decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5' of the APA. Accordingly, under the APA, a bid award may be set aside if the contracting official's decision laced a rational basis or involved a violation of regulation or a procedure. Further, under the APA, although an explanation is not required by the officer, a reviewing court may require an explanation. It is on this ground that the Court remands the decision to the lower court.

Finally, in the administrative decision of in the Matter of Savantage Financial Services, Inc. (2003), held that a business may challenge an agency decision to not provide the business with a solicitation for purchase where the decision was made pursuant to FAR 8.404(b)(3) and where the business did not appear to offer best value, as determined by the agency, based on information obtained from schedule vendors and product demonstrations. However, despite the ability to challenge such indirect pre-solicitation decisions, the review board further ruled that such practice was reasonable under the standard of review laid out in the above-mentioned court and administrative decisions.