You’ve likely heard of small business set-asides, SDVOSB set-asides, 8(a) Program set-asides, HUBZone set-asides, and other set-aside categories regulated, for the most part, by the Small Business Administration. But have you ever heard of a Stafford Act set-aside?
If not, you might want to keep reading about GAO’s recent analysis where it assessed whether the awardee was eligible for the Stafford Act set-aside.
In Adams and Associates, Inc., B-417120 et al. (Comp. Gen. Jan. 16, 2019), GAO dismissed a post-award protest, which alleged agency bias and retaliation against the protester, as untimely.
The GAO’s decision highlights the uphill battle contractors face when alleging agency bias.
Does 8(a) status remain in place for the duration of GSA Schedule contracts? GAO says no.
In MIRACORP, Inc., B-416917 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 2, 2019), the incumbent contractor for administrative support services sought by the Department of Energy, protested the Department’s evaluation and award of a delivery order to RiVidium, Inc., an 8(a) small business. GAO dismissed the protest, saying that the protester–which had graduated from the 8(a) program–lacked standing because it wasn’t eligible for the 8(a) set-aside order.
In a recent decision, GAO determined an agency could reasonably amend a solicitation for a task order issued under a set-side base contract to require offerors to recertify their size and SDVOSB status at the task order level.
As we have previously noted on the blog, a substantial number of protests filed before GAO end in voluntary corrective action taken by the protested agency. In recent decision, GAO addressed just how much discretion agencies have in designing corrective actions.
Spoiler alert: it’s a lot.
GAO sustained a protest recently where a contractor misrepresented
to the agency that it had negotiated offers with incumbent workers when in fact
it had not.
In a protest before GAO, prejudice is an essential element. Even if GAO might agree that an agency’s action was improper, it will not sustain a protest where the protester would not have received the award anyway.
That’s what happened in the protest of Benaka Inc., B-416836 et al. (Dec. 16, 2018).