In a reverse auction, a bid filed literally at the last second was excluded as late, perhaps because the reverse auction system did not process the bid until a few seconds after the deadline.
As a recent GAO protest demonstrates, reverse auctions–by their very nature–encourage last-second bids, but it is the prospective contractor that may pay the price if the reverse auction system does not immediately process a bid.
Subcontractors sometimes prefer to submit their cost or price proposals directly to the government, instead of submitting their cost or pricing information through the prime contractor. In cases where a procuring agency allows it, such independent submissions can ease a subcontractor’s concerns about disclosing sensitive information to the prime contractor.
But when a subcontractor circumvents the prime contractor and independently submits its pricing, the prime contractor is unable to review the subcontractor’s proposal to ensure that it complies with the terms of the solicitation. As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, if the subcontractor’s proposal is non-compliant, the entire team may pay the price.
An 8(a) contract was properly awarded on a sole source basis to a tribally-owned entity, even though the contract was a follow-on to a competitive 8(a) set-aside award.
In a recent decision, the GAO deferred to the SBA’s interpretation of the 8(a) program regulations–which, according to the SBA, allow such sole source awards.
A procuring agency was entitled to evaluate proposals during the course of a pre-award GAO bid protest without violating the automatic stay provision of the Competition in Contracting Act.
According to a recent federal court decision, CICA merely prohibits the award of a contract during the course of a GAO protest, but does not prevent an agency from continuing to evaluate proposals.
Earlier this month, the GAO sustained two protests filed by Latvian Connection LLC–one on a State Department procurement and one on a Department of Interior procurement–because Latvian Connection’s FedBid usage had been suspended. The GAO held that this was improper because the matter had not been referred to the SBA under the SBA’s Certificate of Competency program.
Yesterday, I appeared on In Depth With Francis Rose to discuss the Latvian Connection cases. Please follow this link to listen to the audio of my interview, and don’t forget to tune in to Federal News Radio every weekday from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. for Francis’s top-notch show.
The GAO has sustained a second protest based upon FedBid’s suspension of a contractor from its system.
For the second time in less than one week, the GAO held that the contractor’s suspension from FedBid–and resulting inability to bid on a contract–was improper because the matter was not referred to the SBA under the SBA’s Certificate of Competency procedures.
A large business was tossed out of a government competition because the company’s small business subcontracting goal was substantially below the agency’s stated goal.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency acted reasonably when it rated the large business as “unacceptable” for failing to propose a sufficiently high small business subcontracting goal.