A procuring agency properly considered the past performance of a joint venture’s two partners, even though the solicitation prohibited the consideration of subcontractors’ past performance.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that where a solicitation only allowed past performance references for the “prime offeror,” the agency was permitted to consider the past performance of two joint venture partners–the entities comprising a “prime offeror.”
A discrepancy in a business’s subcontracting plan may have cost the offeror its shot at a position on the enterprise acquisition gateway for leading-edge solutions II IDIQ contract.
As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest, the business was downgraded on the small business participation factor because of a discrepancy in its proposal regarding subcontracting with SDVOSBs. Without the discrepancy, the large business might have landed a slot on EAGLE II.
Five subcontractors and two individuals have paid the government nearly $1.9 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by falsely representing themselves as small disadvantaged businesses.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the subcontractors self-certified as SDBs to their prime contractors, and those self-certifications were then passed on to the government.
Small government construction contractors often have difficulty obtaining required bonding–which sometimes causes them to turn to their subcontractors for bonding assistance.
But what if a subcontractor cannot (or will not) provide the necessary bonding assistance? According to a recent federal grand jury indictment, one California man took advantage of these situations by offering fraudulent bonds–at higher premiums–to government contractors. The man now faces the possibility of more than 30 years in prison.
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.
A procuring agency appropriately refused to give an 8(a) participant the highest-possible past performance score, despite the 8(a) company’s plan to subcontract to the successful incumbent contractor.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that in evaluating past performance, the agency properly focused on the experience of the 8(a) prime, which was required to perform at least 51% of the contract work and manage the contract.
Interested in creating compliant and effective joint venture agreements, teaming agreements, and subcontracts? Join me this Friday, March 15, for a free webinar sponsored by Powering Up! Small Business Teams.
The webinar will cover mandatory provisions to include in joint venture agreements under the 8(a), WOSB and SDVOSB programs, required subcontract “flow downs” and other small business teaming requirements. In addition, we will go beyond the minimum legal requirements and discuss best practices for thorough and effective teaming documents–topics such as dispute resolution, termination, exclusivity, non-disclosure of confidential information, and more.
To register for Friday’s free webinar, or find out more information, visit the webinar’s registration page. And if you’re interested in learning more about the ins and outs of small business teaming, mark your calendar for the upcoming teaming webinars in the Powering Up! webinar series.