The GAO ruled recently that an awardee under a multiple-award IDIQ contract did not have standing the protest the agency’s selection of another awardee.
The decision highlights one of the main tenets of government contracting law: competition is in the government’s interest, and a protest that seeks to reduce competition to the benefit of the protestor could, in a case like this, be thrown out.
Contractors often complaint that the background check process is slow, while contractors and their employee alike worry about information security in the wake of a sensitive OPM data breach that leaked the personal information of millions of government workers and contractors. Now, a change to the background check process is coming.
The White House announced last week that a new government agency would be taking charge of conducting background checks on all federal employees, Armed Services members, and civilian contractors. The government hopes the change will speed up background checks on contractors, many of whom have to wait months before a background check is completed, while also maintaining security over personal information. Of course, as with any government roll-out of a new initiative, it remains to be seen whether the new agency will live up to expectations.
When a procuring agency asks for details, an offeror better provide those details–or run the risk of exclusion from the competition.
Recently, the GAO has confirmed that offerors must provide sufficient detail or run the risk of being eliminated from a competition. First, came Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 16, 2015), where GAO held that an agency can find a proposal technically unacceptable when it essentially parrots the terms of the solicitation. Now comes LOTOS S.r.l., B-411717.5 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 19, 2015), where GAO found that the agency had reasonably excluded an offeror from the competition based in part on the offeror’s failure to provide a detailed organizational chart.
When a procuring agency knows of an apparent organizational conflict of interest, but makes no effort to resolve the issue, the resulting award is improper.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, GAO held that it is impermissible for an agency to simply ignore a known conflict (or apparent conflict). Interestingly, GAO never determined whether the conflict helped or hurt the business’s efforts at winning the award. It said essentially that it did not matter. Because a conflict existed, the agency knew about it, and did nothing, the award was flawed.
In a recent decision, the GAO played seventh-grade English teacher, reminding offerors to use their own words to get full proposal-writing credit.
In the case of Res Rei Development, Inc., B-410466.7 (Oct. 16, 2015), the agency found a proposal unacceptable because, in its view, the offeror had simply restated the terms of the solicitation. The GAO agreed with the agency’s decision, writing that a proposal that merely restates the requirements of the solicitation without adding detail and insight into how the offeror would manage and execute the contract can be found unacceptable.
Assembling components into a commercial item does not make a contractor a “kit assembler” for the purposes of the non-manufacturer rule, according to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
A recent size appeal required OHA to delve in to what is meant by “kit.” In B GSE Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5679 (Sept. 17, 2015), OHA stated that a kit is not a commercial item that has been purchased in parts and assembled, rather, it is a collection of manufactured items packaged together, like a tool kit.
A contracting agency is not required withhold a contract award so that the SBA has more time to process a Certificate of Competency, even when the SBA itself asks for an extension.
The Government Accountability Office decided recently that it was reasonable for an agency to move ahead with an award while the SBA was still in the process of determining the competency of a small business that lost out on the contract.