What is a potential consequence of altering the quality terms in a contract post-award?

Altering the quality terms in a contract after it has been awarded can lead to significant implications, particularly instigating the risk of protests from losing competitors. When a contract's quality requirements are modified, it may create the perception that the alteration gives the awarded contractor an unfair competitive advantage or changes the terms that other competitors based their bids on.

Competitors who submitted proposals and were not awarded the contract could feel justified in protesting the decision if they believe that the changes dilute their chances of winning or affect the integrity of the procurement process. This situation not only raises concerns about fairness and transparency but also undermines confidence in the contracting process. Timely and appropriate management of quality terms is vital to maintain the competitive landscape and uphold the principles of fair competition.

The other options do not align with the likely consequences of changing quality terms post-award. For instance, contractor satisfaction may not be guaranteed as changes could introduce confusion or additional requirements. Enhanced government control may not be a direct result of changing quality terms; instead, it could lead to complications and mismanagement. Similarly, while some might assume that altering quality terms could reduce costs, it often leads to unforeseen expenses in terms of managing protests, delays, and renegotiations.