“Picture this scenario: your company, a small business, spots a new federal set-aside opportunity. You’re eager to bid the job, but unsure whether to go after it solo or pursue it with your mentor-protege joint venture. Then, in a staff meeting, someone pipes up with a bright idea: ‘why not both?’
Why not, indeed? Submitting one proposal in your own name and another in your joint venture’s would seem to increase your chances of success. But before you sign both proposals on the dotted line, there’s something important to consider: the possibility of violating the FAR’s anti-collusion rules…
Our example was about joint ventures, but prime/subcontractor relationships aren’t immune, either. It’s not uncommon, for example, for a major subcontractor to review and comment on the entire proposal, including the pricing. If that subcontractor also submits a bid as a prime contractor, we’re right back to our independent pricing problem.
The FAR’s independent pricing rules are very important but they’re not the only anti-collusion restrictions contractors should know about. FAR 3.303 more broadly states that ‘[a]ny agreement or mutual understanding among competing firms that restrains the natural operation of market forces is suspect.’ The FAR goes on to list various hallmarks of potentially collusive bids, such as ‘[a]ny incidents suggesting direct collusion among competitors, such as the appearance of identical calculation or spelling errors in two or more competitive offers…’…” Read the full blog post here.
Source: Teaming Practices and FAR Anti-Collusion Rules – By Steven Koprince, May 24, 2022. Govology.
