Your document should be in essay format, error-free, graduate level composition (i.e. APAformat should be followed, including cover sheet and references). Please be sure to fullyanswer each question and cite the legal authority you are relying on to support your answer.

PROBLEM:

The Army has determined that it needs to have all the agency’s computer monitors viruschecked(“virus checking” includes inspection of the monitor and then removal of any virus), andhas asked the contracting officer, Dora to issue a request for quotations (RFQ).

The RFQ, issued on November 1, 2014, states that the Army needs to have 1 million ofthe agency’s computer monitors inspected and then virus-cleaned by Monitor Virus Cleaning(“MVC”) qualified technicians. The RFQ requested that vendors submit references, and statedthat past performance would be considered twice as important as the quoted fixed price in theselection process.

The following companies submitted quotations for virus checking 1,000,000 computers:

• Aleph = $20,000,000

• Bet = $14,000,000

• Gimmel = $3,600,000

The contracting officer checked the references that the firms provided with theirquotations, and learned that Aleph had “outstanding” ratings from all three references;Bet had “very good” ratings from two references and an “outstanding” rating (which isone notch higher than “very good”) from a third; and Gimmel’s submission stated that ithad never performed MVC services (although it had performed monitor polishingservices and window-washing, as well).

In addition, the contracting officer learned from the press that Aleph was having financialdifficulties and was rumored to be on the verge of bankruptcy. In fact, the contracting officer had read an interview with the CEO of Aleph in Computer Virus Monthly, in which the CEO wasquoted as saying “What do they expect of a tiny firm like us? Of course, when the high-techtitans are falling, the little companies like us may get hit.”

The agency had a team of technical evaluators go over the three companies’ submissions.They recommended eliminating Gimmel’s quotation from consideration, because thecompany lacked relevant past performance, and it wasn’t worth taking the risk of dealingwith them.The contracting officer reviewed the quotations, read the evaluation write-up, and thought aboutthe technical team’s recommendation; however, she wanted to select Gimmel because of thelow price quote.

She’s called you, her counsel, in for a discussion. She wants to hear from you what the legalimplications would be of selecting Gimmel and rejecting Aleph and Bet. Here are her exactwords to you:

“I know it’s a pity that Gimmel hasn’t done this kind of work before, but myaunt Betty tells me catching viruses on computers isn’t as complicated asit seems, so maybe I should go for Gimmel, since their price is so low. Imean look, they will do this work for a fixed price of $3,600,000, won’tthey? And that’s a lot cheaper than anyone else – and our budgetsituation is looking pretty awful, so picking Gimmel could really help. Can I just skip the past performance rating? Should I have pitty on thembecause they are a tiny company? I can just throw out Aleph and Bet asnon-responsive to the RFQ?”

Your job is to write up answers to her questions, and to provide the legal implications ofselecting Gimmel. Be sure to address the following:

• What is the risk of picking Gimmel? (Provide a detailed explanation of the risk)

• What legal options will Aleph and Bet have if you select Gimmel? (Please identifyall options and provide a detailed explanation)

• What is the legal procedure that Aleph and Bet must follow? (Define and explain theprocedure)

• Where can Aleph and Bet file their claim? (Provide a detailed summary of the processand identify the steps)• What must Aleph and Bet prove to be successful on their claim? (Provide a detailed explanation)