A procuring agency did not engage in impermissible discussions by allowing a small business to verify its intent to comply with the applicable limitation on subcontracting.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the information regarding the small business’s compliance with the subcontracting limits was a permissible “clarification,” and did not require the agency to open discussions with all offerors in the competitive range.
The GAO lacks jurisdiction to decide whether an agency improperly suspended or debarred a contractor from federal government contracting.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO dismissed a protest filed by a debarred contractor, holding that the protester’s underlying challenge to its debarment was a matter for resolution by the contracting agency, not the GAO.
As a rare Midwestern government contracts attorney, I am often asked, “when are you next coming to DC?” Well, now I have an answer. I am pleased to announce that I will be presenting a workshop entitled “Government Contracts Legal Update 2014” at the Small Business Leadership Development Conference on March 18.
My workshop will cover recent developments and trends in government contracts law, with a special emphasis on legal developments affecting small businesses. I will also be on hand throughout the day at the Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird booth to answer questions about the presentation and discuss other areas of government contracts law.
If you haven’t yet registered for the SBLD Conference, don’t miss out. The event focuses on emerging and small business leaders, and includes networking, educational workshops, and matchmaking sessions. Visit the SBLD Conference website to learn more.
See you March 18!
In discussions, a procuring agency is not required to explicitly inform an offeror that its proposal contains a significant weakness, so long as the agency sufficiently identifies the area of concern.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency had adequately informed the offeror of the agency’s concerns, even though the agency did not specifically identify those concerns as a “significant weakness.”
Past performance evaluations often hinge on government officials completing and returning past performance questionnaires. But what happens when the government doesn’t return those PPQs?
In one case, at least, the answer was “nothing good.” In a recent GAO bid protest decision, only two of six PPQs were returned for the lowest-priced offeror–and that offeror ended up losing the contract to a firm with a higher past performance score.
The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a contracting officer’s decision not to set aside a procurement for small business.
In a recent decision, SBA OHA dismissed a contractor’s contention that the procuring agency should have set aside a procurement for small business–and rejected the contractor’s underlying legal argument, as well.
According to the GAO, a solicitation was unduly restrictive because it prohibited the consideration of the past performance of an offeror’s affiliates–even when the affiliates would contribute to performance of the contract.
The GAO’s bid protest decision in Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Feb. 6, 2014) demonstrates that agency restrictions on the consideration of past performance must be reasonable. However, the Iyabak Construction decision should not be interpreted as standing for the principle than an agency can never exclude the past performance of an offeror’s affiliates if those affiliates will contribute to contract performance. Rather, the case suggests that it was the government’s failure to offer a good explanation–not the underlying restriction itself–that led to the “sustain” decision.