1. If Jones Engineering was hired to develop the master plan and that plan is to be used as the Statement of Work, then they cannot bid on the procurement. This is because of the fact that the company could write the Statement of Work to be more fitting to their company that it would be to rivals. The Statement of Work and the procurement are to be independent of each other. The protest would not rule in favor of Jones Engineering because of this fact. Had the government or another company written up the Statement of Work, Jones Engineering would have still been eligible to bid on the procurement. If there were no other bids on the procurement, the Government could possible start from scratch and write the Statement of Work on their own, allowing Jones Engineering to make a bid.

2. Whether or not the protest is upheld depends on what sort of negotiations happened prior to procurement. If Gerry and North American Aviation Co. (NAA) were in discussions for a an employment position prior to contract award and did not report it and either reject the employment or disqualify himself from participating in the procurement then the protest would be ruled in favor or Boeing. However if the contract was under $10 million, then it is within the law for Gerry to seek employment with NAA after procurement. The difficult part of the protest on Boeing’s side would be proving when the negotiations for employment took place, which would probably tie up the case in the protest process for an extended period of time.

3. Even if it is not included in the contract, the Termination for Convenience clause is still valid. The Christian Doctrine says that the Termination for Convenience clause is inherent to government contracting therefore it does not have to be present in the contract to be in effect. In the event that the contract is terminated, the contractor would be