An agency does not need to reopen discussions to allow an offeror to address a weakness first introduced in a revised proposal.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that an agency properly eliminated an offeror from the competitive range where the offeror, in a revised proposal submitted after discussions, introduced a new weakness.
A contractor’s technical problems in accessing a solicitation did not entitle the contractor to an extension to submit its proposal, because the contractor delayed attempting to read the solicitation until nearly three weeks after it was issued.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO suggested that the contractor’s failure to try to access the solicitation was unreasonable, and held and that the agency was justified in refusing to extend the proposal due date.
A SDVOSB was not required to inform a procuring agency that the service-disabled veteran owner had passed away following submission of the SDVOSB’s proposal, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In NEIE, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-164 C (2013), the Court sharply criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for unjustifiably maintaining that the SDVOSB in question was required to inform the EPA of the veteran’s death, even though there is no such requirement in the regulations and the veteran’s death had no impact on the SDVOSB’s contract eligibility.
The NEIE case is not only a good reminder of when a SDVOSB must be eligible to receive a non-VA SDVOSB set-aside (typically, at the time of the initial priced offer), but a troubling example of an over-zealous procuring agency misinterpreting and misapplying the SDVOSB regulations to the detriment of an eligible SDVOSB.
A small business’s so-called “hardship request” to vary a solicitation’s payment scheme caused the procuring agency to reject its proposal.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO upheld the agency’s decision, holding that the small business’s proposal was, at best, ambiguous about whether the small business would comply with the solicitation.
A bid bond containing an erroneous “not to exceed” limit of less than the 20 percent required by the solicitation was defective, and was properly rejected by the procuring agency.
The GAO’s recent bid protest decision in IMR Development Corporation, B-408585 (Nov. 13, 2013) is a reminder that when a bid guarantee is required, a contractor must ensure that the bid bond meets the government’s requirements.
How many times have you forgotten to include an attachment in an email? For many of us, it is not an uncommon occurrence.
In the case of one unfortunate contractor, a forgotten email attachment led to the rejection of its proposal–and the GAO upheld the agency’s decision.
A contractor’s alleged breach of its teaming agreement did not provide a basis for the agency to conclude that a Procurement Integrity Act violation had occurred.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, even if a teammate misuse voluntarily provided confidential information, the misuse does not violate the Procurement Integrity Act. Moreover, the GAO considers an allegation regarding the breach of a teaming agreement to be a private dispute, falling outside of the GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction.