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 procuring agency was not required to consider the past performance of an offeror judged to be technically unacceptable, according to a recent bid protest decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In The Alamo Travel Group, LP v. The United States, No. 12-764C (2012), the Court rejected an incumbent contractor’s argument that an agency could not properly exclude the incumbent’s proposal without first considering its past performance–which, the incumbent argued, would demonstrate its ability to successfully perform the contract.
An awardee’s low price, by itself, is not evidence that the awardee cannot meet the solicitation’s technical requirements, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Midwest Tube Fabricators, Inc., B-407166, B-407167 (Nov. 20, 2012), the protester argued that the awardee could not meet the solicitation’s requirements at the awarded price. The GAO dismissed the protest, holding that the protester’s allegation did not present a valid basis of protest.
A contractor’s proposal may be rejected for failing to address a requirement contained in a question-and-answer document, so long as the Q&A contains all of the essential elements of a solicitation amendment.
This was the ruling of the GAO in a recent bid protest decision, Energy Engineering & Consulting Services, LLC, B-407352 (Dec. 21, 2012), in which an offeror’s proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable for failing to address a standard imposed in a Q&A.
“We’ll tell you how we’ll manage the contract–after you award it to us.”
That, in essence, appeared to be the position taken by one contractor recently in response to a Department of Defense solicitation. The contractor in question failed to provide an operations and management plan required by the solicitation, pledging to provide it after award. Not surprisingly, the agency assigned the contractor an “unacceptable” score. And equally unsurprising, the GAO denied the contractor’s bid protest.