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 procuring agency need not inform an offeror, as part of discussions, that the offeror’s price is higher than those of its competitors. According to a recent ruling of the Court of Federal Claims, the only exception is if the offeror’s price is so high as to preclude award to the offeror–an “unreasonable” price, in FAR parlance.
The Court’s decision in Lyon Shipyard, Inc. v. The United States (Nov. 27, 2013) comes on the heels of a recent GAO decision reaching a similar result.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task-order competition under a government-wide acquisition contract.
In MORI Associates, Inc., No. 13-671C (2013), the Court held that it lacked authority to consider whether an agency’s decision to procure services by way of a task order competition under a GWAC–rather than under the GSA Schedule–was improper.
A procuring agency erred by failing to seek clarification of an obvious clerical error in a small business’s proposal, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc., No. 13-378C (2013), the Court held that although procuring agencies have discretion as to whether to clarify clerical mistakes, that discretion is not unlimited–and that failing to clarify an obvious mistake may be an abuse of discretion. It’s a ruling that should be cheered by small government contractors.
Here’s one you don’t see every day: a contractor, complaining that the government was unfairly holding it to outdated pricing, attempted to protest its own award.
No dice, according to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the protest on jurisdictional grounds.
A company’s blanket purchase agreement with the U.S. Forest Service was not a “contract,” meaning that the company had no ability to file a complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for an alleged improper termination of the BPA.
In dismissing the complaint on technical grounds, the Court’s message to the terminated company was, in essence, “tough luck.”
In a recent case, a federal court held that a procuring agency properly downgraded an offeror’s proposal because the proposal was ambiguous as to how much of the contract work the offeror intended to subcontract.
According to the Court, even though the amount to be subcontracted was small in any event, the ambiguity meant that the procuring agency reasonably questioned whether the offeror understood the requirements of the solicitation.