In a message dated 3/11/2004 12:47:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@sccaprepared.com writes:
> And in the $2k porsche example, the entire point of all this is that
> rather than paying $2k to get the information, you pay shop rate for the
> dealer to look it up. The _PC_ sets the bond amount, not the competitor,
> so you won't have people financing FSM's when they get protested.
>
> Mark
>
As long as we're using Porsche as an example, since they and other
mfrs are becoming less and less inclined to give out what they consider
to be "proprietary information", you might not get an answer by asking
the dealer to look it up, whether you paid for his time or not. They're
certainly not legally obligated to give you an answer AFAIK, even if
you're the car owner (since you're not paying them to repair the car).
In any case, doing it this way means you're sure to add time into the
protest process, whether you eventually get the answer you need or not.
And Rick is right, IMO...it WILL deter some people from protesting, which
chips away at the way our competitor-policed system works. And I don't
think throwing up our hands and saying "we know there's lots of cheating
going on anyway" justifies radically changing the system unless we know
for certain that changing it has more benefits to everyone than it adds
pitfalls.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with asking the SEB to revisit
this rule. But IMO depending on having the dealer "look it up" as a general
rule if the protest requires documentation has lots of potential problems
involved with it.
GH
|