With winter weather descending on much of the country, it is all the more important for contractors to ensure that their proposals are submitted with time to spare.
In a recent bid protest decision, the Court of Federal Claims held that extreme weather at an offeror’s location did not excuse the offeror’s failure to deliver a timely proposal because there was no interruption of “normal government processes” at the government location designated to receive proposals.
Once an agency has completed its past performance evaluation it is not required to seek updated past performance information from offerors.
As demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, an agency may rely on the most recent past performance information available at the time of evaluation, and is not required to seek more recent information at the time of the source selection.
The non-manufacturer rule applies only when a set-aside solicitation is designated with a manufacturing NAICS code, right? Not anymore.
A recent Court of Federal Claims case effectively invalidated SBA’s regulations that limit the application of the non-manufacturer rule to procurements for supplies. Instead, the Court held, the Small Business Act requires that the non-manufacturer rule apply any time that the Government buys manufactured products–regardless of the NAICS code assigned to the procurement.
A NAICS code appeal can be filed even after a SBA District Office accepts the procurement for competition in the 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program.
In a recent decision, SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals rejected the argument that acceptance of a procurement into the 8(a) Program results in the approval of the NAICS code assigned to that procurement, thus preventing subsequent NAICS code appeals. Had SBA OHA reached the opposite conclusion, the decision might have effectively excluded 8(a) contracts from the reach of traditional NAICS code appeals.
A contractor’s proposal to use an unavailable employee to fill a key personnel position caused the GAO to sustain a competitor’s protest.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO concluded that a offeror failed to satisfy a material solicitation requirement concerning key personnel where the employee included in the proposal left the offeror’s employment–and the agency knew that the employee was not available to perform the contract.
Government contractors who have attempted to recently register or re-register in the SAM database have been confronted with new questions asking about an “immediate owner” and a “higher-level owner.” These new SAM questions have caused some confusion about what information, if any, a contractor must provide in SAM with respect to an “immediate owner” or “higher-level owner.”
The new questions originate in a recent amendment to the FAR, which requires all SAM registrants, if owned by another entity, to identify that entity by legal name, CAGE code, and type of ownership. This blog post breaks down the new rule and explains when this rule will come into play.
An agency has no obligation to consider outside information bearing on an offeror’s past performance when the offeror fails to include information in its proposal.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO concluded that an agency had no obligation in its past performance evaluation or cost evaluation to import and consider favorable information the offeror could have, but did not include in its proposal.