US government Contracting Protest Procedure (Answering Specific Questios as Briefly as Possible) (Essay Sample)

Protest System Student’s Name Institution Introduction The US government provides regulatory guidance that defines the legal scope, confines and general framework of government contracting. An integral aspect of the contacting regulation is the protest mechanism, which provides avenues for protest and disputes with government on government contracts. This paper seeks to delve into a critical analysis of the protest system and procedure to determine its effectiveness in resolving issues as well as to review the impact of the system on general government operations Review of the protest system and procedure While it is generally argued that it does not make commercial sense for venders to be able to sue their prospective clients, it becomes necessary for many fundamental reasons. The legal provision allows for checks and balances as well as overall oversight. Vendors being able to sue provide the necessary focus and systemic legal provisions to counter fraud, wastage, abuse and other ethical consideration in government contracting. It enables prompt review, determination and ruling on contracting disputes as well as provision of framework for the resolutions. In this way, if a contractor has grounds for disagreement on a government decision with regards to government contracting, such a contractor enjoys the protest system, providing a platform for complaint and redress. Law and order is the foundation of any functioning government. The government can therefore not be able to operate effectively and legally without a strict legal framework. A proper legal framework must involve the ability and provision for resolution of issues and complaints. While delays in provision of services and governance abound when the complaint procedure is invoked, the essence of a conflict resolution and issues resolution mechanism cannot be understated. The current framework is fairly considerate of the need for government role to govern and provide services. The framework allows for continuation of delivery of commodities and services in instances where they are urgently needed and a delay cannot be afforded (Symon, 2009). Besides, it allows incumbent contractors to resume provision of services during the litigation process. It would be recommendable; however, that plans be instituted to ensure that there is adequate time between the invitation to tender and the actual awarding of contracts to allow time for protests and determination to ease the burden on service delivery and governance. The protest process only allows for interested parties to file for determination. Except under special circumstances, there are strict timelines on submission of protests. With respect to award of contracts, prospective contractors who would potentially be in line for consideration if they are able to sustain the protest are admissible as protest. Other bases for protest include defective solicitation, issues with regards to acceptance and rejection of bids, unlawful termination of a contract among others. In addition, in instances where a tender involving routine service contracts are terminated, incumbent contractors continue to provide goods and services for the up to three month litigation period until the contract is awarded. While it allows for the incumbent contractor to continue providing services and items, it is necessitated by need for continuity so as not to curtail government operations. Incumbent contractors for provision of routine service contracts provide a firewall against operational shutdown by government. The protest system as currently constituted provides clarity and makes flimsy claims easily dismissed outrightly or non- admissible without denying complainants a chance to be heard. The protest process in government contracting might be expensive in terms of time resources as well as the expense and personnel of running the system. Provisions should be put in place to ensure that such unforeseen incidences do not stifle government efficiency in governance by improving the time frames for litigation. It must however be understood that any resources incurred are for the pursuit of justice and fairness and does not count as wastage as justice is the foundation of functional society. Furthermore, there is risk that the whole system portends an inherent risk of creating a ...