Absent an express prohibition in the solicitation, the experience of a proposed subcontractor may be considered by an agency in determining whether an offeror meets the solicitation’s experience requirements.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO confirmed that the experience of a proposed subcontractor could be considered in an agency’s evaluation because the solicitation did not prohibit the agency from considering the subcontractor’s experience.
When an agency’s invitation for bids requires the submission of a bid guarantee, a bidder’s failure to include the original bid guarantee at bid opening may render the bid nonresponsive.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that a procuring agency properly rejected a bid because the bidder provided only a copy of the required bid guarantee with the bid.
For the purposes of the ostensible subcontractor rule, a firm’s small business size is determined as of the date of final proposal revisions.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, any changes to the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractor made after the date of final proposal have little to no bearing in determining compliance with the ostensible subcontractor rule.
An agency improperly downgraded a proposal simply because the proposal’s full-time equivalents (FTEs) differed from the agency’s undisclosed internal estimate.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO concluded that an agency’s “mechanical” evaluation of the adequacy of an offeror’s proposed staffing by reference to an undisclosed government estimate was improper, because the estimate was not disclosed to the offeror and the agency failed to give the offeror an opportunity to address the differences between the offeror’s proposed staffing and the government estimate.