There are rules for procurements, and they get violated all the time, so protesting an award is common. From my prospective, the award of a government contracts are protested enough. Government procurement officials don't often play by the rules, or are often too stupid to understend them. As a professional who plays in this game, I have advised companies numerous times that they had grounds to protest an award to another firm.
What is unique in this circumstance is that they are contending that the procurement was awarded to their competitor erroneously, because their machine was better. Not better "better", but a better match to the requirements of the solicitation. I think this is potentially acceptable grounds, and that they may be correct. I'm assuming that they are very familiar with the capabilities and specifications of their competitor's equipment, and they believe they can prove according to the requirments of the solicitation, they were the obvious choice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
I read the article and have a different take.
Date: 2007-03-29 01:23 am (UTC)What is unique in this circumstance is that they are contending that the procurement was awarded to their competitor erroneously, because their machine was better. Not better "better", but a better match to the requirements of the solicitation. I think this is potentially acceptable grounds, and that they may be correct. I'm assuming that they are very familiar with the capabilities and specifications of their competitor's equipment, and they believe they can prove according to the requirments of the solicitation, they were the obvious choice.