Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr. As the agency was aware, Singapore Aerospace Engines changed its name to ST Aerospace Engines in 1995. A potential relationship might exist where, for example, a parent corporation has a history of marshalling corporate-wide resources to assist a subsidiary encountering performance difficulties. The agency contends that it was not required to discuss the information because it was historical in nature and therefore not subject to change and because it had already discussed it with representatives of STA Systems, who had not denied responsibility for it. Both of these arguments miss the point.
Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest.
This recommendation differs from the one made in the original protected version of this decision. We originally recommended that after discussions with STA Engines had been completed, another round of BAFOs be solicited. After issuance of the protected decision, the protester requested that we modify our decision to delete the recommendation for another round of BAFOs. The protester argued that a reopening of the price competition would create the risk of an auction since offerors' prices have been disclosed by the agency, and that the defect in the process may otherwise be remedied without impairment to the integrity of the procurement process by limiting the scope of the reopened negotiations. We agree with the protester, and, accordingly, have modified our decision as noted.