A large business lacked standing to protest an award made under a small business set-aside solicitation, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Creative Computing Solutions, Inc., B-408704, B-408704.2 (Nov. 6, 2013), the GAO dismissed a bid protest filed by a large business, finding that the protester would not be in line for award even if the protest was sustained.
A GSA Schedule solicitation restricted to a particular brand item was improper because the procuring agency failed to properly justify the restriction, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
The GAO’s decision is an important reminder that “brand name only” restrictions are disfavored and that procuring agencies bear the burden of reasonably justifying such restrictions–even when they buy off the GSA Schedule.
A Contracting Officer must designate the NAICS code which best describes the principal purpose of the product or service being acquired, right?
Not always. As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, when it comes to picking a NAICS code for a GSA Schedule task order, a Contracting Officer’s choices can be quite limited–and the “best” NAICS code might not be chosen.
A New York government contractor has agreed to pay $5.65 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by failing to comply with the Price Reduction Clause in its GSA Schedule contract.
The hefty settlement is a strong reminder that the GSA takes the Price Reduction Clause very seriously, and that failing to abide by the Price Reduction Clause can lead to significant repercussions.
A procuring agency is not required to evaluate whether potential small business offerors possess the capabilities to meet all of the requirements of a solicitation before issuing the solicitation as a small business set-aside, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Swank Healthcare, B-407367 (Dec. 12, 2012), the GAO denied a large business’s bid protest, holding that the procuring agency had properly issued a small business set-aside without first considering whether the small businesses it had identified as likely offerors possessed the capabilities to meet all of the requirements of the solicitation.
Well, that was fast.
A little more than two weeks after the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the VA need not consider service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-asides before procuring goods and services using the Federal Supply Schedule, the GAO has ended its long-running dispute with the VA over the same issue.
The GAO’s decision, in a case also involving Kingdomware Technologies, puts a sudden end to a series of GAO cases (known by many as the Aldevra cases) holding that the VA has been acting contrary to the law by failing to consider SDVOSB set-asides before using the Schedule.
As I briefly reported last night, in a crushing blow to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has overturned the GAO’s Aldevra decisions.
Judge Nancy Firestone, ruling in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-173C (Nov. 27, 2012), held that the VA reasonably interpreted the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 as not requiring consideration of a SDVOSB set-aside before the VA procures goods and services under the Federal Supply Schedule. For SDVOSBs, the Kingdomware Technologies ruling means that the VA’s much-ballyhooed “Veterans First” acquisition policy means little more than “Veterans First (If We Feel Like It).”