Past performance evaluations often hinge on government officials completing and returning past performance questionnaires. But what happens when the government doesn’t return those PPQs?
In one case, at least, the answer was “nothing good.” In a recent GAO bid protest decision, only two of six PPQs were returned for the lowest-priced offeror–and that offeror ended up losing the contract to a firm with a higher past performance score.
The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a contracting officer’s decision not to set aside a procurement for small business.
In a recent decision, SBA OHA dismissed a contractor’s contention that the procuring agency should have set aside a procurement for small business–and rejected the contractor’s underlying legal argument, as well.
According to the GAO, a solicitation was unduly restrictive because it prohibited the consideration of the past performance of an offeror’s affiliates–even when the affiliates would contribute to performance of the contract.
The GAO’s bid protest decision in Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Feb. 6, 2014) demonstrates that agency restrictions on the consideration of past performance must be reasonable. However, the Iyabak Construction decision should not be interpreted as standing for the principle than an agency can never exclude the past performance of an offeror’s affiliates if those affiliates will contribute to contract performance. Rather, the case suggests that it was the government’s failure to offer a good explanation–not the underlying restriction itself–that led to the “sustain” decision.
Submitting a proposal for a GSA Schedule task order does not result in an automatic recertification of the offeror’s size.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals rejected the argument that an offeror recertifies its size merely by submitting a proposal for a GSA task order. Instead, a firm’s size for purposes of a GSA Schedule task order competition is determined based on the underlying GSA Schedule contract, unless the procuring agency requires recertification for the task order.
The SBA 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture exception from affiliation applies to non-8(a) contracts, so long as the joint venture meets the 8(a) regulatory requirements.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA Area Office erred by deeming a mentor and its protege affiliated for purposes of a non-8(a) contract, without considering whether the joint venture qualified for the mentor-protege exception to the ordinary SBA affiliation rules.
We are digging out after a snowstorm here in the Midwest, and I plan to stay warm tomorrow by cheering on the Jayhawks in their game against West Virginia. But before I turn my attention to Andrew Wiggins, Joel Embiid and company, there are plenty of government contracts headlines worth sharing.
In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, some 8(a) companies question whether they program had brought them any advantages, a commentator discusses the “blessing and curse” of mentor-protege agreements, the government may meet its 23% small business goal for FY 2013, and much more.
A prime contractor was not economically dependent on its subcontractor for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules because a prime contractor “has the power to choose whatever subcontractor it desires.”
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals stopped short of holding that a prime contractor could never be economically dependent on a subcontractor, but SBA OHA’s decision indicates that if such dependence ever existed, it would be in an unusual case.
This blog is for educational purposes only. Nothing posted on this blog constitutes or substitutes for legal advice, which can only be obtained from a personal consultation with a qualified attorney. Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the author and/or Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird LLP. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this blog is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird LLP.