• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers

Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers | Scottsdale AZ Experts

Schedule Your $500 Consultation

480.607.7900

  • About Us
  • Team BLG
    • Kent Berk
    • Daphne Reaume
    • Elizabeth Turnbull
    • Cassandra Kellogg
    • Baxter, Dog
    • Bear, Dog
    • Link, Dog
    • Sammy, Dog
  • Reviews
    • Reviews
    • Video Testimonials
  • Services
    • Probate, Trust & Estate Contests, Disputes & Litigation Lawyers in Arizona
    • Guardianships and Conservatorships
    • Financial Exploitation of Vulnerable Adults
  • Videos
  • Resources
    • Arizona Intestacy Calculator
    • Do I Need to Open Probate in Arizona?
    • Arizona Financial Exploitation Assessment
    • Arizona Guardianship & Conservatorship Assessment
    • FAQs
    • Blog
  • Contact us
    • Location

Google 5-star rating badge

BID PREPARATION COSTS NOT REIMBURSABLE AFTER CANCELLATION SOLICITATION

By Kent Berk on February 2nd, 2010 in BLOG

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego and Sikorsky Aircraft Company successfully challenged the Air Force’s award to The Boeing Company of the contract to supply the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Vehicle for the CSAR-X program.

The GAO sustained the protest because the “agency improperly amended the solicitation.” 

Specifically, the agency eliminated unique aspects of the proposed helicopters (including maintenance requirements) as a consideration in the agency’s calculation of certain aspects of the evaluated Most Probable Life Cycle Cost, and substituted a subjective consideration of potential maintenance efficiencies, but precluded offerors from generally revising their proposals to take this change into account.” Since those changes could have had an impact on the proposals, the GAO “recommended that the Air Force permit offerors to revise both the cost/price and non-cost/price aspects of their proposals in response to the changed evaluation scheme.

The GAO “further recommended that the agency terminate Boeing’s contract if the evaluation of revised proposals resulted in a determination that its proposal no longer represented the best value to the government, and that LMSI and Sikorsky be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing their protests, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

After amending the solicitation and allowing revised proposals, all as recommended by the GAO, the Secretary of Defense terminated the CSAR-X program. As a result, the Air Force terminated the solicitation. Thereafter, Lockheed and Sikorsky requested that the GAO modify its direction to require the Air Force to award them their costs of preparing their proposals, and the costs of the protest. In its December 15, 2009 decision, the GAO rejected the request:

As is clear from the record, the agency promptly implemented our recommended corrective action following our decision, and the protesters were furnished an opportunity to compete for the contract. LMSI and Sikorsky participated in the reopened competition on the same footing as the other competitive range offeror, Boeing, and all three offerors faced the same potential risk of a proper decision by the agency to cancel the procurement. This is the same risk that is inherent in any competitive acquisition. Since the protesters have made no showing that the cancellation of the CSAR-X solicitation was unreasonable or otherwise improper, the fact that the reopened competition did not ultimately result in an award provides no basis for us to recommend reimbursement of their proposal preparation costs.

Primary Sidebar

Schedule Your $500 Consultation

What Our Clients Say

“There is no reason to look any further. Just call Kent and you will know you have found the right person for the case. Thoughtful, determined and confident, you cannot ask for more. Kent is the Best of the Best!” – Mary R.

Read All Reviews

Video Resources

Please watch our videos to learn more about important legal issues. We hope that they help you gain a better understanding of the law and how it can apply to your situation.

Watch Videos
Berk Law Group, P.C. 14220 N. Northsight Boulevard, Suite 135 Scottsdale, AZ 85260
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Berk Law Group Scottsdale office location icon
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2026
Berk Law Group
Disclaimer

Privacy Policy

Sitemap

Berk Law Group P.C. Scottsdale estate and trust litigation attorneys logo
  • About Us
  • Team BLG
    ▼
    • Kent Berk
    • Daphne Reaume
    • Elizabeth Turnbull
    • Cassandra Kellogg
    • Baxter, Dog
    • Bear, Dog
    • Link, Dog
    • Sammy, Dog
  • Reviews
    ▼
    • Reviews
    • Video Testimonials
  • Services
    ▼
    • Probate, Trust & Estate Contests, Disputes & Litigation Lawyers in Arizona
    • Guardianships and Conservatorships
    • Financial Exploitation of Vulnerable Adults
  • Videos
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Arizona Intestacy Calculator
    • Do I Need to Open Probate in Arizona?
    • Arizona Financial Exploitation Assessment
    • Arizona Guardianship & Conservatorship Assessment
    • FAQs
    • Blog
  • Contact us
    ▼
    • Location