The matter of SAP Public Services, Inc. dealt with an unsuccessful supplier’s allegation that a contract was awarded to a noncompliant competitor whose product failed to meet the “generally available” requirement in the request for quotation.
The dispute arouse out of a U.S. Air Force request for quotation (RFQ) for a commercial off-the-shelf software product for a new expeditionary combat support system. After the Air Force selected Oracle’s quotation, a competing supplier, SAP Public Services Inc., launched a bid protest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”), alleging that Oracle’s proposed software was not yet “generally available,” since it had not been previously installed on a customer’s site.
The Air Force maintained that the “generally available” requirement applied to the installation of the software modules, rather than to the integrating interfaces that connected the modules. Furthermore, even if the requirement spoke to both the modules and the connecting interfaces, the Air Force argued that the proposed software modules had actually been installed with other customers and were therefore “generally available.” The GAO agreed, and the protest was denied.
While the Air Force successfully defended itself against this bid protest, the case illustrates how the use of vague phrases such as “generally available” can leave a purchasing institution open to interpretive challenges by unsuccessful suppliers. This case study provides just one example of how vague concepts can spark bid challenges. To prevent giving suppliers the ammunition to launch these legal attacks, purchasing institutions should remove vague requirements from their procurement documents.
